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 9 of 9)
Don Jan 17th 2008 11:49AM
I have PVP'd on both sides at 60 when it was the cap as well as 70 now. When I was 60 and running AV on my horde it didnt matter that we lost every match instant queues and the fact we did get some kind of honor still made it a faster honor per hour grind than winning as alliance with long queues. This was AFTER cross realms were introduced.
Now at 70, we were winning alot until the changes and now horde aren't doing so well on my battlegroup. We just try to race and always lose but the few games we D up we almost always win. Still, even when we lose we get 188 honor minimum if not more.
I have now left 3 ally 70s behind completely, my ally battlegroup just gets destroyed in every AV match with 0-20 honor at the end. It was tough leaving those toons behind especially my warrior main (played since launch) in SSC/TK gear. But now that Im a more casual player and no longer raid the main focus at 70 for me is pvp.
So I downgraded to my horde priest in blues and greens and started grinding out arena and honor gear and havent looked back since. Havent logged into my ally toons in over a month now. In fact Im now rolling some of the same classes of my ally toons on horde and I hope to have 2 more 70 horde toons by the expansion.
onetrueping Jan 17th 2008 12:32PM
It seems to me, from looking at the map and reading the comments, that the best strategy for the Alliance in AV now is to sit at the opposite end of the bridge chokepoint, ceding SH to the Horde, and keeping them at a stalemate there. A good lineup of tanks and DPS that the Horde can't squeeze past at the end of the bridge accompanied by a line of healers and casters in the back for artillery would keep the Horde at bay easily enough, while rogues drop on their healers from behind and keep them busy. In theory, this could work well, but of course, it requires the Alliance to be willing to cooperate with each other instead of charging somewhat mindlessly.
Siedre Jan 17th 2008 12:34PM
Sorry, but I have to agree with the commenters when they say the problem is mental, not physical. Take the Alliance in Stormstrike. They never try to play the field. A solid handful of them run straight to Galv just like in the old days. Only, instead of having free reign to kill him, they find Horde there and they don't know what to do. Horde doesn't push immediately, we wait, and that gives us the ability to crush the Alliance offensive from behind as soon as they enter that building. It's like a squirrel running into a cage for a nut, only to have the cage door swing shut. And since Alliance completely ignored Stonehearth, a company of 3-5 Horde can take the graveyard without trouble, which pushes Alliance respawn too far back to re-form an offensive. It's only then that Horde will take Snowfall, to ensure no alliance can rez anywhere but their base. End game.
If Alliance thought like Horde in our battlegroup, things would be different. Stay at Stonehearth. Defend your tower. Wait until Horde enter Balinda's lair, then swarm in, CC the tank, and rock them. Pick people off when they run by instead of letting them through. It's a new game. Play differently.
Mugi Jan 17th 2008 12:42PM
Hord is losing mayority of the time in my bg as well, only times we win is when we play defence wich this article pretty much state, The problem is that AV favours the different sides differently.
For aliance it favor them big time to rush ignore all towers and just attack the end general, this is what happens on our server most of the time, they usually have 1 to 2 towers capped the rest is still not ticked over and they beat teh boss leaving most of them with little honor gain from AV, including hte hord side who usually don't get more then 2 under the time as well.
Only time both sides get most honor is when hord play defence, granted hord wins most of the time but usually all towers get taken.
Fearless Jan 17th 2008 1:19PM
People, seriously, have you even *read* David's original post?
I was there when the "mutual zerg" strategy first came into being; it was calculated for a fast game, a race to the finish. There are videos out there of Horde AV victories in under 5 minutes.
Then Blizzard went ahead and made the Reinforcements change. Suddenly defense is much more important to victory. Race-to-the-boss games are a thing of the past. The terrain hasn't changed, but the WAY it is used has. The Horde has always had a defensive chokepoint (Iceblood) and an offensive chokepoint (once they take Icewing, nothing gets through that pass). When the game was a race, they would let Alliance through, because that meant fighting fewer players in Dun Baldar. Now, however, they don't have to let anything through - they can bottle up the Alliance north of Icewing and win on numbers alone. And, as David correctly points out, the only counter to this strategy would be a spirited defense at Stonehearth - which is both difficult, due to terrain issues, and counterintuitive (since the zerg game required a surrender of SH). This is why only Alliance premades that follow the "How to win in AV" strategies (outlined on this blog last month) stand a chance, and only if Horde fails at easy defense.
As for Horde players sneering at Alliance who don't queue up for being destroyed... Few people volunteer to be humiliated over and over for no gain. Would you?
Rowen gunn Jan 17th 2008 4:36PM
It's a nice read, but very bias. Iceblood is no where near as easly defended as the author pretends to make it out to be and our captain is completly open on all but one side for assault. Typically the horde forces ride out, head right for Stonehearth and maybe one or two try to defend Iceblood and quickly die after. Even when we do defend there's two very wide paths around iceblood. There is no "bottleneck" as bottleneck implies one small passage not two wide openings. It would take most of the horde force to hold back the alliance there as they just mount up and go around to the side people are not defending.
The horde base itself is very weak, our towers barely shoot anyone because of LOS issues unlike the alliance towers where both towers can shoot someone before they even make it across the bridge.
This read was clearly written by an alliancer trying to stir up pity but the truth is there's no solid choke point for the horde until just outside the general's room. That is the only place I've EVER seen the horde bottleneck the alliance and once again because of the LOS issues horde can't actually attack until alliance come up and over the hill. They simply run back into the building below the towers to break LOS with defenders, archers, and what not. It's free alliance break and recovery room while horde are in open LOS the whole time while assaulting the alliance base. Also for when the alliance get bored they just jump the fenses at our base and walk right into the horde's base. Again we horde have no choose but to go across a completly LOS open bridge.
Johnakonda Jan 17th 2008 4:23PM
"matt said...
while I agree the lay out of AV is an issue playing horde in av for 2 years I have no sympathy at all for the alliance. And the Horde AV que's in my battle group(Cyclone) are almost instant. I would also add that the "bottleneck" At frostwolf is still easy to get around by jumping the fence. Also if you just stand at the flag at iceblood Grave yard you still can't defend the gap nearly as well stormpike.
If you ask me the alliance problem is there are starting to have a bigger AFK problem than the horde in AV at least thats what I see when I'm playing.
I will give you this Stoneheath needs to be moved back or the horde starting area to let the alliance have a fair chance at defending it. "
are you stupid? if you move stonehearth back then we start inside this bottleneck rather than have a chance to spawn outside of it.
And the bottleneck at Iceblood can be easily bypassed as you can jump off once you spawn at iceblood graveyard rather than go through the narrow passage way which is guarded by iceblood tower. The alliance have to travel an IMMENSE distance to reach this so called bottleneck and once they do, all the horde have to do is jump off their graveyard.
erik Jan 17th 2008 4:41PM
I think a previous poster nailed it: what's the real problem? Zero return on honor for a loss. The rest is immaterial and, indeed, apparently based on (at best) anecdotal evidence. Who wins more/won more/will win/etc. appears to be a product of team makeup (random chance or premade alike), experience, battlegroup, morale, what received knowledge says is the uber strat this week, the phase of the moon, what you had for lunch, and so on.
The fix?
Add a way for the losing side of a given AV game to come away with at least *some* honor. Buff HKs? Maybe. Add honor for turnins? Might do it. The important thing is to make it a way for the losing side of a given AV game by *doing* something. Remove the feeling of powerlessness and make it no longer a win all or lose all kind of deal.
Personally, I think this is also what drives the (I think misplaced but still understandable) "Horde were screwed for 2 years, now the Alliance gets the same, and *now* there's development?" observation. The difference, as has been correctly pointed out, is that now the losing side gets bupkis.
erik Jan 17th 2008 4:43PM
Bah. Not
"The important thing is to make it a way for the losing side of a given AV game by *doing* something."
I mean
"The important thing is to make it a way for the losing side of a given AV game to avoid getting zero honor by *doing* something."
...I think it was clear in context, but there you go.
kra Jan 18th 2008 2:00AM
Uhhh.. what about previous to patch 2.3 when horde would get camped in their cave they lost so bad. I went into games where everyone was just hanging out in the cave afk or not, waiting to lose. Now alliance are doing the same thing. It's where one faction decides to beat themselves (and their teammates) up. "We're just going to lose like we always do..." I had two characters on each faction on the same battlegroup and when they start losing, everyone stops trying. Some sort of twisted character self-esteem issue in my opinion. ...but now, alliance seem to forget about how they were owning horde right before 2.3. QQ
pvpforpeanuts Jan 23rd 2008 7:04PM
I didn't read through everyone's comment, but from experience, AV isn't necessarily in the Horde's favor. There is all sorts of terrain issues. Since BG's became an honor grinding fest, people raced to the Generals. Horde was stopped on the bridge, while the alliance had a straight shot into the FW Keep. alliance cannot deny that it is relatively easy for them to ride through Iceblood, jump the fences in the space between the hill and the fortifications, run past FWgy, and then ride into Frostwolf Village or jump the fences. Then from there, they ride through the hut between Archers that do hardly anything and then cap a Relief hut that is relatively hard to defend. (Think about it, When Horde recall, they pop in front of the entrance to Drek, when alliance recall, they pop right on the Flag). While capping the East and West FWtowers, archers stand there and do nothing.
I do agree that alliance towers need to relocated and I think Balinda needs a class change. However, seeing as how alliance meet little or no resistance from horde npc's as opposed to the resistance met by the Horde from alliance NPC's.
I think SFgy needs to be removed and that Balinda hut needs to be moved further west to make there only one line of Traffic. Fortify SH for the Alliance and make the teams fight head on. Move Alliance Towers back into their territory.
Saying that AV is in favor of a slow moving Horde Offensive means that the alliance players are not being honest about how easy it is to ride past all of the horde defense at IBGY and Take FW while the defense is playing catch up. Horde cannot possibly ride straight to Van's room the way Alliance can.
I agree that changes need to be made to AV, but it should be done in a way that takes a loot at both sides. The above article is written, in my opinion, from an alliance perspective. Who remembers being Horde pre 2.3 and not every having a chance because the alliance could ride straight to Drek? Things have changed and now that the alliance isn't getting all of their honor, they are boycotting a battlegroup. Sounds like a bunch of poor sports to me.
Kyle Con Jan 21st 2008 2:13AM
I have recently transferred both my toons to the Stormstrike battlegroup from the Emberstorm battlegroup. On Stormstrike, the horde defend everything relentlessly, and they win almost all the time. I play a lot of AV, and it is by far one of my favorite battlegrounds, but lately I've been thinking, "what's the point"?
Now, before you say anything about "Well, that's because you used to win all the time", that is not true. On Emberstorm, it was very always even. Horde would win one, Alliance would win one, Horde wins, Alliance wins, etc. The only times you'd see a complete blowout is when an Alliance or Horde tank and his healbot cronnies would decide to join the fun.
Also, I have a Horde and an Alliance character. My Alliance toon, I use mostly for PVE (Human Mage), while my horde toon (Undead rogue, lol... I'm original, I know), I use mostly for PVP. Lately I have been focusing on my mage, but I can tell you, with these current changes it would be completely ignorant to say that the Alliance is not disadvantaged. For instance, I have guarded IBGY on my rogue with 4-5 friends, using ventrilo. Two healers, one MS warrior, and two SL/SL warlocks. We're all fairly well geared, and the SL/SL warlocks for example have over 15k health each just buffed with fort, but still. We have, on many many occasions since the patch, completely shut the Alliance out of IBGY. Once you defeat the first wave, you've more or less won the game, and it is stupidily easy to keep the Alliance off the flag at that node.
Now, on my mage, Alliance side, it's a completely different story. My mage is a little better geared then my rogue, 3/5 vengeful, 2/5 merc, vengeful weapon, etc (I'm on a half decent 5v5 team..). I usually play AV with my 5v5 team, who are also very well geared (warrior has shoulders from 2v2 and priest has shoulders from 3v3, etc etc). I can tell you, that it is IMPOSSIBLE to defend SH the same way I can defend IBGY on my rogue. You need literally half the raid to do it, which gimps your offence, which automatically turns it into a turtle, which automatically hands the Alliance a lose.
Excellent article, by the way.