AV improvements slated for 2.4
by Eliah Hecht 
Feb 4th 2008 at 2:30PM
It seems like they just can't leave Alterac Valley alone. In this case, that's probably a good thing, because there is a lot of discontentment with the state of that battleground right now. Bornakk just announced (and three different people just dropped us tips to let us know) that AV will get some "very significant improvements" in the upcoming patch 2.4:- Horde starting tunnel moved back "to a more equal distance from the first objectives"
- Each faction's Generals and Warmasters will buff each other for health and damage: the more of them your side has, the stronger they all are. Hopefully this will more strongly motivate killing the Warmasters.
- Balinda Stonehearth will do more damage, but she and Stormpike will have their recent health increases repealed.
Filed under: Patches, Battlegrounds
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
imparush Feb 4th 2008 2:41PM
good now it would become a more fair fight for ally
SweetPoison Feb 4th 2008 2:40PM
Whatever gets the queues back down works for me. Stormstrike battlegroup ftl :(
Arabelli Feb 4th 2008 2:43PM
What amazes me is that people seem to want things completely identical rather than equal. Balinda is a mage, so obviously she's going to be squishier than Galv; they shouldn't be completely identical. But their difficulty should be similiar, which it's not even with her hp increase. If they make her hit harder, great! That's a step in the right direction.
Would any of us really enjoy playing identical objectives, having everything be completely homogeneous without any differences? What would be the point? I welcome things like the bridge or Drek having adds or just generally mixing it up. Things should be similiar difficulty, not identical. Even it out, make things balanced. If they do that, I'll be a happy Belli.
Matthew Feb 4th 2008 2:55PM
The problem with "equal but not identical" is that it's monstrously difficult to get that "equal" part right without the "identical" part. As witnessed by a battleground that's arguably been imbalanced in the favor of one faction or another since it's come out.
WSG and AB are more or less mirror-imaged with respect to the starting positions of the two factions and the various architectural features that each side has to deal with, and people rarely complain about faction balance in those instances, unless I'm mistaken. I think making the sides equal is a noble goal, but as we're seeing, it's difficult, even for a studio known for world-class design skills.
Arabelli Feb 4th 2008 3:05PM
I agree that it's certainly not easy, but it's far more interesting to at least try rather than to slap the same polygons down for everyone. Not to mention that in the same thread where you have Horde complaining about the bridge, you have Alliance claiming about Iceblood. The balance is closer than we probably give it credit for, it's just when you have something glaring in your face, it's harder to see it.
I'd be interested to know the win-loss ratios in various battlegrounds in the battlegroups. I'm willing to guess they're not SUPER far off each other in most places.
And I honestly believe allowing a 'queue by group' feature would go a long way for general enjoyment.
guesswho? Feb 4th 2008 2:44PM
in before horde QQ
guesswho? Feb 4th 2008 2:44PM
damn...
Quickshiv Feb 4th 2008 2:45PM
I believe AV would be improved by having 2 different types of servers. Pre-made and PUG. Pug would be for people just wanting to do fast runs for honor and Pre-made would only be accessible if you were in a full group or possibly even a full raid group. I would love to play AV with coordinated group in the way it was meant to be played. I would also like to see guild vs guild matches like 20v20 in the Arena. I might be the only one but I am a big fan of large scale organized battle.
Delta Feb 4th 2008 5:02PM
I would like to see that as well, because trying to coordinate 40 people in AV when all they want is honor and nothing else, you might as well consign to either winning or losing depending on what everyone else feels like doing.
zenpunk Feb 4th 2008 2:49PM
How does any of this change the fact that IBGY is a bottleneck the horde can just guard to win every time? Even if the horde starting tunnel is moved as far back in the map as it can go, they can still get to IBGY first. I think the map itself needs some redesign to even out the choke points.
Fireflash38 Feb 4th 2008 3:14PM
Wait, so you want the alliance to get to IBGY before the Horde do?
It is ridiculous how people are blind to each factions' bias:
Alliance: IBGY is impossible to get past!!! (it's not, just run past the defenders instead of fighting them)
Horde: The DB base is ridiculous with all of the NPCs!!! (yes, they are closer to the path than in FW, but they are still easily avoidable)
The real issue IMO, is the actual design of the bases. Give Horde a moat outside the FW keep with the bridge the only way in. Also, change the terrain around SH so that you can only get past to the east of Bal.
It really pisses me off when a lot of people, both on the forums and here, just complain that the other side has it better (whether it be racials or terrain or generals), and yet do not think of it objectively. All they can think about is how [i]they[/i] need to be more powerful/get more honor etc.
Anyway, stop the blind QQ, and actually suggest something worthwhile to read.
Drifter Feb 4th 2008 3:30PM
@Fireflash38, I agree that IBGY is not impossible to get past. It's not uncommon to have a group of 3-5 Alliance riding straight through, hugging the side of the hill to the west of TP. The dumb ones stick to the road.
As for Aid Station, the Horde can split the middle of both groups of NPC, but the dumb ones stick to the road and aggro the npcs sitting by the forge. I'm so tired of fighting the likes of Lana & Dirk.
zenpunk Feb 4th 2008 3:47PM
You're obviously not from the horde battlegroups that figured out how to win AV 100% of the time. If you just race, like the old days, then yes, either allie or horde can win. But the better horde servers have figured out they can just defend the bottleneck in front of IBGY, and allie has zero chance of winning.
For reference, http://www.wowinsider.com/2008/01/16/the-av-map-imbalance-in-patch-2-3/
Drifter Feb 4th 2008 5:16PM
@zenpunk
The Horde in my battlegroup put up a very token defense at IBGY if any at all. Most times a few will try to thwart the Alliance attack on Captain Galvanger, a few will then setup anywhere between IBGY, FWGY, and FWRH. I can't say that I've ever seen an organized defense at IBGY. It's always a race to the north and turtle only if all the graveyards end up getting taken and they're forced back to FWRH or FWGY.
On a positive note, from reading some of the comments here I should be happy that both sides queue up and play. Our queue times this weekend were between 1m-4m, with 10m showing up after 2am. :)
Darin Feb 4th 2008 2:46PM
I don't see why Blizzard just mirrors the two sides of the field. That way it's exactly the same for both teams and people can stop QQ'ing about terrain advantages.
Scoottie Feb 4th 2008 2:53PM
they need to tweak the win/lose aspect of the reinforcements reaching 0. would be better if the side that gets to 0 first gets a debuff rather than ending the game right away.
PeeWee Feb 4th 2008 2:59PM
Hehe, I wonder what this will do to the 95% Alliance win rate in our Battlegroup. *giggle*
Let the honor-farming... continue.
Clasifyd Feb 4th 2008 3:17PM
Oh, you must be on Ruin, eh? =P
I'm on Horde side, and out of the dozen or so games I played over the weekend, using varied tactics, we managed to pull out a single victory. 124 honor games FTL...
Theserene Feb 4th 2008 3:56PM
Or the 99% alliance win rate on our battlegroup (thanks Blackout)
Thijz Feb 4th 2008 4:29PM
I smell you are a NightElf Huntard... Am I right? Typical behaviour...