The AV map imbalance in patch 2.3
Alterac Valley has never been completely balanced. Before patch 2.3, most people generally agreed that the map favored the Alliance, but now, we can see that it favors the Horde. The difference mainly lies in which parts of the map are most important, and how either side can use the terrain differences to win the game. Before, the only way to win the game was to kill the opposing faction's general; anything less was effectively an on-going stalemate. But now that we have reinforcements, the general will automatically die of grief and shame once too many towers fall and players bite the dust, regardless of whether he's actually seen the enemy or not. This seemingly simple shift has totally turned the faction imbalance on its head, and placed the game entirely in Horde hands to prosecute as they choose. Assuming a relative equality of gear, player skill and morale (and of course AFKers), the Horde can decide to make AV a slow but certain victory, or else toss the dice and make it a quick but uncertain race to the end.
Keep reading to see how they do it, and why the Horde can't play their ultimate best if they want to play at all.
As you can see on the map above, the Horde and Alliance each have two major territories, one for each captain and general. Each territory has its bottlenecks that force attackers and defenders into certain places, and three of the barriers involved can be passed going one way but not going the other. Each team's offense must progress through two stages in order to reach the opposing general and destroy all the towers. Both the Horde and Alliance ideally have some players on offense and some on defense, but as we'll see shortly, these territories are far from equal when it comes to how easily they can be defended. The Horde has a very strong frontal defense near their captain, but a somewhat weaker defense near their general -- the Alliance on the other hand, has a very strong defense around their general, but their captain's territory is effectively free for the taking.
To the left we see the Alliance captain's territory, Stonehearth. The entire area is wide open except for a narrow pass in the north, just near Icewing Bunker. There is minimal natural terrain blocking off access to any of the objectives, or forcing the attackers into a certain position. The graveyard can be approached from two major directions, and it is comparatively easy to capture. Defending it simply takes too many players, so Alliance usually doesn't bother. Stonehearth bunker, in particular, is so far south that the Horde can actually reach it first at the game's outset. If the Alliance wants to defend it, the only way is to take it back after the Horde has already been there.
Iceblood, on the other hand, is mostly closed off to entry from the north. While the Horde captain and the first tower are accessible, the Iceblood graveyard is nestled behind a convenient hill, creating a bottleneck very close to the resurrection point. Just a few Horde players defending any objective from there can seem like many, because after they die they come back to the battle so quickly. By contrast, the nearest graveyard to the north is the neutral point, Snowfall, which the Alliance must wait 4 minutes in order to actually make use of, and which is farther away from any Iceblood objectives in any case. At the start of the game, the Horde can wait for the Alliance in Iceblood tower, the graveyard bottleneck, or their captain's bunker, and then get right back into the action within a minute if they die.
Iceblood graveyard is by far the strongest place on the map for the Horde. It is perfectly positioned for defense of the Horde captain's territory, as well as for an offensive push into Stonehearth. In addition, even if the Horde does not defend it initially, Iceblood is relatively open for them to recapture from the south, even after the Alliance forces have been there. This recapture is especially easy if the Alliance offense is split up trying to kill the Horde captain and take both the two towers. Once the Horde taps Stonehearth graveyard, the entire Alliance offense is sent back all the way to Dun Baldar.
This Alliance home base is much easier for them to defend. Its strength matches or surpasses that of Iceblood. Before patch 2.3, Horde would find themselves having a hard time at the Stormpike graveyard bottleneck, and an even harder time getting past the Dun Baldar bridge into the Alliance general's base area. When killing the general was all that mattered, the Alliance defense could do very well just holding off the enemy here. But now that running out of reinforcements ends the game, the Alliance no longer has sufficient time to get enough players back on offense once their first attempt has failed. Remember that bottleneck in the northern half of Stonehearth? It has no use for the Alliance, but now the Horde can use it to lock them completely inside Dun Baldar. Not only is Stonehearth difficult to defend from the initial onslaught, but in the hands of the Horde, it prevents all but a trickle of Alliance players from having a second chance. The Horde thus secures a guaranteed victory by taking at least two towers and killing the Alliance captain, then fighting as far as they can till reinforcements run out.
The Horde general's area, on the other hand, is certainly weaker than Dun Baldar, but this hardly matters once the Alliance has been trapped north of Stonehearth. Only if the Horde is too late to defend Iceblood does the southern terrain of their territory turn against them. The Alliance can attack the Frostwolf graveyard from multiple directions if they have enough players in the area, or they can just ride past the graveyard into the Horde general's home base. There is a bottleneck leading into this base, but it lacks the direct line-of-sight advantages of the Dun Baldar bridge, and it is a bit more difficult for the Horde to take advantage of. None of this matters, however, if the Alliance doesn't have enough numbers there, or if the Horde offense has already made a strong push into the Dun Baldar area. If the Horde sets the Alliance back at Iceblood -- and they can without too much effort -- the game is already over, though it may take 20 or 30 minutes of turtling to finally run out of reinforcements. In the end, the Alliance will get very little honor, and the Horde will get a great deal. Some people will try to tell you that the terrain doesn't matter in AV, that just like the other battlegrounds, it is all about player skill and gear. Certainly before and after the changes in patch 2.3, there has been a lot of AFKing on one side or the other, as well as many players who whine, or don't even try to win if they perceive their faction has even a slight disadvantage. But according to current reports from players, we can see more than ever before that one side has the opportunity to completely shut out the other, to take all the bonus honor for themselves and leave none for their opponents. It's less a matter of skill, and more a matter of whether the Horde decides to defend Iceblood or not. Even Blizzard agrees, and has started making minor changes to AV already.
In those battlegroups where the Horde and Alliance have a somewhat more even win/loss ratio, the Horde is choosing to race to the finish rather than shut the Alliance out at Iceblood -- effectively giving the Alliance a chance to win on purpose (or else out of ignorance of their advantage). In those battlegroups where the Alliance no longer signs up for Alterac Valley, and the Horde win 100% of the time, they are relishing in the ease with which they can set up their own northward attack and destroy the Alliance offense in just a few important battles near the beginning of each match. The Alliance decides not to play a hopeless game, and the Horde has to wait an hour or two in the queue for each guaranteed win.
Unfortunately, if the Horde want to keep playing Alterac Valley more than once every two hours, they have to start by giving the Alliance a chance to get going at Iceblood and at least get some honor for themselves. Horde who shut out the Alliance completely may feel very happy with themselves -- perhaps even justifiably so in some cases -- but they're doing themselves a disservice in the long run. Losers who gain nothing from a battle don't come back to lose over and over again, no matter how much they love the game.
In principle, the addition of reinforcements is good for Alterac Valley -- the possibility of an indefinite stalemate is bad for any battleground. But the map was designed around a "kill the general" game, not what we have today. Thus, changing the rules for winning the game has completely changed the game itself, and a previously minor map imbalance has become the most important spot in the game: Iceblood graveyard is the new pivot of Aterac Valley, and the Horde gets there first.
Filed under: Horde, Alliance, PvP, Battlegrounds
Patch 5.3 interview with Ghostcrawler
Mystery of the Unborn Val'kyr
The latest patch 5.3 news
All of the latest Mists of Pandaria news





Reader Comments (Page 5 of 9)
twh Jan 16th 2008 3:52PM
Just like the 'Horde on Moon Guard Slaughter Alliance Leaders in less than Half an Hour' is any different?
Seriously, it's actually good to see something from the Alliance perspective in what seems to be a Horde dominated blog.
Eric Jan 16th 2008 7:45PM
The OP was making the point that it's not so much that either side has an advantage, it's that when horde chooses to play their IB/Galv Defense card it creates an insurmountable imbalance that the Alliance has no counterpart to.
In my experience, most of the time both sides are content to take towers and see who downs their general first. Each side gets a fair bit of honor and the fastest team gets a bit more.
Yes, horde win more often now, but from what I hear, that's due more to better AFK policing than game changes. I hear that at least in the Cyclone battlegroup horde used to have terrible problems with afk-farmers, far worse than alliance did.
Ircasha Jan 16th 2008 4:02PM
In Nightfall, the basic Alliance strategy these days involves 25+ of them rushing past IB/FW straight to the RH and holding it at all costs. They then cap the two towers in the base and kill Drek, regardless of whether the other two towers have capped or not. There have been several losing games I was in where we (Horde) ended up with more honor.
Even if you can mount a decent defense at the IB chokepoint, if 25-30 alliance rush through there, a significant number are going to get through and the 2-3 Horde afking in the base aren't going to stop them from taking the RH. It's hard enough these days convincing more than a handfull of Horde to play any defense at all. Most would rather race, most likely lose, and end up with 200+ honor in 10-15 minutes. They are only in AV to farm honor, winning is not a concern.
While I do play AV to farm honor, I prefer to actually play the BG and try to win. I don't mind the turtles where we grind each other down. I've ended up in some great 5v5, 8v8 type fights in those games which are a blast.
It amuses me that Blizz beefed up Bal's hitpoints. I've still three manned her, it just takes longer. Hogger > Balinda.
I would love it if they changed the terrain to disallow jumping the fence into Frostwolf and moved a bunch of our NPCs up near the RH just to annoy the Alliance. I can't bypass the bridge into DB and someone always aggros all the NPCs in the base.
andrea Jan 16th 2008 4:00PM
Please explain why some battlegroups have no issue at all with their Alliance winning. And how my battlegroup, used to always loose when it first came out, and now is just starting to get it together.
Whatever. I *almost* believed this imbalanced crap..but it really is just a lack of teamwork and inability to play correctly on Ally's part. This is becoming nothing but a dead horse at this point.
Syme Jan 16th 2008 4:10PM
Good article. In my battlegroup it tends for Horde to be "Race and lose, or defend and win a bit more than half the time." I've enjoyed the change because I get to fight other players now, and generally I prefer defending at Iceblood to going with the offense.
nearlysober Jan 16th 2008 4:10PM
"Defending it simply takes too many players, so Alliance usually doesn't bother."
So... the map is imbalanced because Alliance is too stupid to defend SH GY with enough players?
GG on proving that the "imbalance" comes down to bad tactics.
Zechleton Jan 16th 2008 4:28PM
Don't know if this was mentioned in the comments already but it wasn't in the actual article. Capping iceblood actually has a derogatory effect for alliance - a kind of "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario. In long games like the ones you mention horde trying to force, clearly alliance needs every GY it can get its hands on. However, in a rush came capping iceblood just means the horde spawn in their cave, closer to the vital frostwolf GY. If you don't cap it they spawn much further away and so alliance more or less has to forego the bonus honour for that GY.
Korek Jan 16th 2008 4:28PM
Just add in a +200 honor bonus if your side loses because it went to zero reinforcements and label it "the general escaped" and then implement a +200 honor bonus if you slay your enemy's general as part of the victory conditions.
This would give the losing side some token honor if they are worn down to zero reinforcements, encourages a vigorous defense and makes it worthwhile, and provides an incentive to the winning side to not capture the entire enemy force in a giant turtle in their base because it could easily cost them another couple hundred bonus honor.
The reinforcement system then becomes a way to prevent games from going on forever, the layout of the map gives each side different advantages that matter, and everyone can get a little bit of bonus honor more often.
cluffer Jan 16th 2008 4:29PM
Great article, are you a trial lawyer? No jury can argue the pictures and the logic. As a horde player, we always have the "option" of a reinforcement win but in my BG, we play a zerg free for all.
Sure, every once in a while two groups decide to choke off IB and we flame them and a turtle results that we always win. It has sort of been obvious from the start that if you do that, Alliance won't play anymore.
When we were losing (never 80%, more like 60%), we still got awesome honor so I still queued. Now, Alliance get nothing if we scorch earth so while some may find it fun, it's not conducive to short queues.
What we really need is a mirrored map, how simple is that to figure out.
James Jan 16th 2008 4:37PM
Well, in Shadowburn Horde won for about the first 3 weeks, not very bad queue times either. Now, 45min-1 hour queues, and when you do get in it is an Alliance premade. Bleh.
Manasseh Jan 16th 2008 4:41PM
First off, this is not a complaint about the queue times. Nor is it a denial of the current issues with the map in AV. I totally agree with the strategic analysis of this post. I just disagree with the proposed "solution". Allow me to explain...
I play on Stormstrike battlegroup. AV queues are 2 1/2+ hours right now. I want to give a Hordies' perspective on the new AV issues. Since day 1 of Alterac Valley the Horde has been faced with an uphill battle. The very mention of Stormpike Graveyard and the bridge would make our stomachs sour. As a result, the games we won were because we fought harder, coordinated better and (yes) creatively isolated the Alliance general.
Now that the rules have changed the Alliance comes in expecting their "free honor", but the Horde has continued to fight the way we always have -- with everything we've got. Now the Alliance has come to hate the very bottlenecks (bridge and GY passage) that they once delightedly used to frustrate us (3+ hour turtle games, anyone?). They have been complaining and declaring "boycotts" on the realm and battlegroup forums since the week after 2.3.
As a Horde warrior, this does NOT make me want to acquiesce... it does NOT compel me to give the Alliance their "free honor". It makes me want to crush them totally and completely... to make them sorry they even bothered to queue. If I only cared about honor point totals, I'd be an AFKer. I care about playing my best and giving my all. The Alliance made me this way... so for now, they're just going to have to deal with it.
"That which does not kill us makes us stronger."
Pfooti Jan 16th 2008 4:46PM
I play alliance-side in Stormstrike, and I can assure you that my boycott has nothing to do with the difficulty in playing AV against you hordies, or the map. In the week after 2.3 came out, I was on the forefront, posting strategies in battlegroup and realm forums, trying to show the alliance how to win (or at least compete) in the new AV.
Not enough allies caught on, leading to the boycott. Now, AV alliance-side is a pathetic waste of time for me. As much as I enjoyed it, pre-2.3 and just post-2.3, nowadays it is the OTHER ALLIANCE players that make me never, ever want to do AV again. The boycott (a stupid idea) seems to have gained so much traction that the good players aren't coming back, just because there's no good players left. It is sad, believe you me.
twh Jan 16th 2008 8:11PM
Give me a fracken break.
Your side was no different than the rest of the Horde on other BGs were. Wanna know why they AFKed before? because they still got more honor than Alliance when they won.
If anything, it was the Horde that came there expecting to be given the free honor, but when they found they could get more at the cost of Alliance honor, they exploited it and now they suffer from UNBEARABLE wait times because they're too stupid to see the big picture. Keep it up, buster, and eventually, you're gonna have to wait long enough where it's not even worth the wait to even try to get into AV, and it'll be on your own heads.
Get something straight: You Horde on Stormstrike are nothing special. In fact, it's your fault that the queues are as hideous as they are because of your idiotic faction pride. It's a game. And for you to assume that your frustrations and enduring endless torment to actually WAIT a few hours, the same way a good number of Alliance did before the cross realms, make you more than justified, let me remind you that it's a game. In the end, it won't mean jack.
If you guys really get this riled up over a BG, perhaps it's better that you just turn off your PC and do something else.
I'm sick of hearing you self-important douches carry on as though you were the victims. Actually, you are, you're the victims of your own success and hubris.
/endrant
Manasseh Jan 16th 2008 11:42PM
@TWH - LOL Wut? >.>
Somebody's riled up, but it isn't me. Allow me to simplify my post for you -- Main Point: I'm not going to stop playing the game to the best of my ability. This is in spite of 1) potential advantages, 2) long waits, 3) whining opponents, 4) can't-we-all-just-get-along ideologies.
Doing what so many have suggested (amicably allowing both sides to do what they want without being accosted by the other side, thus allowing both factions to farm honor in AV) is what would destroy the game for me, not 2 hour queues. I hope they fix AV to make it balanced, but until then I'm not going to play foolishly just to pacify the people I play against.
It IS a game. It's supposed to be fun. Fun for me is doing battle and giving my best. Anything less is pointless.
twh Jan 17th 2008 1:51AM
I understood what you said, manasseh, but it still doesn't change the fact that your attitude is the reason why your winning against scrubs, AFKbots, and newly 70s after waiting a few more hours. That's a real win, ain't it?
And I have just as much right to play the game to it's fullest, and heaven forbid it's not the same way you do. I used to do AV in hopes of getting a good set of gear to play in the arenas. However, with the plague of AFKers making it impossible to do anything, I've left it behind and have given up on it.
And, of course, the 'heroic' Horde players like yourself whine and bitch consistently about having to wait, expecting to be handed honor by the boatload for having to wait so long, ignoring the fact that Horde got more honor for losing than for winning before the patch, and trying to overgeneralize.
Just wait. Eventually, there won't even be a queue for AV and you still won't change your minds because you still believe that depriving someone else's enjoyment of the game is vital to your own enjoyment and there'll be no one but yourselves to blame.
sleeptastic Jan 16th 2008 4:43PM
My main is a horde warrior. AV terrain always favored Horde, if you could convince 7-10 people to defend IB. In the past you couldn't do it and that's why Horde used to always lose. Asking Alliance to defend SH is like asking Horde to defend Frostwolf, not to mention the fact that the SH Tower is completely irrelevant to the Alliance defense. And the only time you lose to a ninja cap of relief hut is when you can't convinced 5 people to go with you to retake it, which sadly happened about half the time to me.
mk Jan 16th 2008 5:55PM
not to be a wet blanket, but where were the huge posts analyzing every tidbit of AV mechanics and geography in the 2+ years of constant horde losses in AV? Where were the boycotts? sure now it sucks more for allies who lose because of the smaller amount of honor gained for losses. but still, all the attention after a couple months of changes that could probably be counteracted by allies adjusting their strategy (in a history of many many many many av runs both before and after patch, i have never seen a single ally defend balinda. ever. maybe 2 pallies defending SH gy ever.) is just silliness. At this point in the game, this kind of psuedo-military-scientific analysis just seems a little out of control.
Brendan Mar 14th 2008 6:32PM
It's because pre 2.3, Horde didn't play for an hour and get 20 bonus honor. That's what happened last time I played AV. I can premade EotS with my guild and get 1000 bonus honor an hour. Why do you think people don't want to do AV again? I'm trying to earn AV badges now and I've gotten 22 without getting a single win. I don't suicide against Galv. I try and get to IBGY and hold it... but once Horde gets to SH chokepoint, it's over. They just have to rush that and the game is over usually. The best case scenario for me now is horde rushing general so I can earn my badge as quickly as possible. There's no way we can fight past the SH chokepoint before we run out of reinforcements.
critsammich Jan 16th 2008 5:12PM
Horde always QQ'd about how overpowered paladins were (pvp and pve) Pre-BC, yet the nurfs didn't come in until horde got paladins. It was THEN that alliance finally joined in the QQ... and bam, paladin nurfs.
Horde always complained that AV was imblanced and favored alliance. Now the the slightest hint of favor towards horde, and the waves of QQ and complaints (no matter how well spoken/written they are) come flooding in. I foresee another "balance" coming in to help wipe away the alliance tears.
This has turned into a game of who can cry hard enough.
C'mon all you non-warlocks, cry harder... for a greater cause... NURF WARLOCKS!
Imogynn Jan 16th 2008 5:13PM
To the horde who think the map is balanced:
Would it be balanced if the ramp you take up to Stonehearth was closed off? If that becomes a cliff, do you still think the map is fair?
Why or why not? Alliance have that cliff.