The Art of War(craft): Is Wintergrasp too successful for its own good?

Crygil's post about the change from Daily quests to Weekly ones -- conceivably a first for the game -- note that the changes were being explored "In an effort to better balance the amount of players that are in Wintergrasp at any given time". No matter how Blizzard tries to spin it, they're trying to dissuade players from participating in Wintergrasp. This is a bad idea. There's something epic about Wintergrasp, and it's not (just) the lag. Considering it's obviously one of their most popular game features in Wrath, it's ironic they're taking steps to curtail its success.
There's something to be said for the ambitious concept of scaling battles. Apprehensions about Wintergrasp's appeal were quickly quelled when the zone quickly filled up as more players hit max level. It was something that we'd never seen before in the game. But while the game is fun, but the rewards are phenomenal, too. The Honor gain from playing a short game of Wintergrasp are extremely good, especially if you factor in the daily quests. Almost too good, in fact, that Blizzard expressed concern that it was taking away interest in instanced Battlegrounds. I understand the goal of reducing Honor, but the move from Daily quests to Weekly ones is just plain bad.
With respect to the Honor gain, it would have been simple enough to reduce the Honor reward from Daily quests from a generous 1241 Honor per quest at Level 80 to something more reasonable, perhaps a third of that. Reducing the Honor gained from other Wintergrasp objectives, as they are doing on the PTR, seems like a step in the right direction. Limiting Honor is fine, but actively trying to reduce the number of people playing the game? That sounds like a really bad deal.
Zarhym notes that there is "an overabundance of players" in Wintergrasp, "resulting in poor realm performance during peak play times." It's sad and ironic that Blizzard has to take steps to control something so successful. Before we start to examine things, though, let's get one thing out of the way: Blizzard underestimated Wintergrasp. Between hardware capacity and how much data is communicated from server to client, there are a lot of opportunities for performance to bog down. And Blizzard simply didn't seem prepared for what happened.
Without having to understand the intricacies of just how servers handle load, it should be noted that excessive player activity concentrated in one area can lead to realm crashes. Blizzard knows this, which is why the response is so unexpected. City raids and other massive player-organized events have been known to crash entire realms before, so how can a non-instanced Battleground with ambitions of hosting multi-raid battles be a surprise? Admittedly, the requirements of something so massive might just be too much, even for Blizzard's top-of-the-line machines. They've also explained that upgrading everything is no simple matter, a process that takes several months and entails meticulous planning.
So where did it all go wrong? From the onset, Blizzard already had scenarios with hundreds of players. They said as much at the Worldwide Invitational last year. Even though they said they expected anywhere from 50 to 200 people in the zone at once, the success and popularity of Wintergrasp still caught them with their pants down. One of the problems is the design of the zone, which concentrates most of the activity in one place, Wintergrasp Keep. During games, for example, it's possible to escape lag by concentrating on the Southern objectives.
Unfortunately, despite the changes to gameplay, participating in the battle for the Keep proper still grants the most Honor owing to the sheer number of Honorable Kills players can soak up through sheer proximity. By extension, it makes it easier to complete the kill quests and is the only way to complete Defend the Siege. Even though dispersing activity won't eliminate lag entirely, it will certainly help. If I experience lag during a game, I usually escape it by having the Spirit Guide port me to a Southern graveyard.
Having multiple objectives all over the Battleground would help disperse players but also run the risk of diluting the epic feel of the zone. As bad as lag can be, there's something truly amazing about having hundreds of players take to the battlefield. It's one of the things that make Wintergrasp so amazing and exactly the thing that makes it so terrible. Would it be as fun if there were numerous points all over the map (not just the South) where the game can be won? I don't think so. Not only that, low population servers with low PvP activity will almost certainly suffer from the additional dilution.
It's not a simple problem, and Blizzard seems to be taking an extreme approach to solving it. It's hard to imagine there being no other way to fix the problem than to discourage players from participating. Will enabling aerial battles alleviate the problem or make it worse? Players who enjoy Wintergrasp are looking forward to the next iteration of the zone, and these changes aren't very reassuring. It's one thing to tune the zone's gameplay, and it's another to disincentivize it. Weekly quests? Does Blizzard really want players to visit Wintergrasp that much less?
That doesn't give much confidence for further development of the zone, does it? Introducing new, cool elements such as flying machines might just encourage more players to play Wintergrasp. The way Blizzard has tried to make solutions on the PTR, you'd be inclined to think that that would be the last thing they want. This is a case of success gone all sorts of wrong, and it's unlikely that there'll be further refinement to Wintergrasp itself in the near future. Not with the focus on a new Battleground and efforts to improve instanced Battleground participation. Blizzard is intent on ushering player traffic back into instanced Battlegrounds.
The one bright spot in this whole thing is that we know Blizzard is learning. Wintergrasp is the culmination of years of learning from Alterac Valley and other world PvP objectives. This is merely another lesson learned. While Wintergrasp will quite conceivably plateau from hereonforth, the successes of the zone herald a much more interesting and equally massive world PvP objective in the next expansion. Blizzard proved it can work -- a non-instanced Battleground as massive as other zones in Northrend that probably sees more traffic than any other zone save perhaps for Icecrown and The Storm Peaks. Considering Blizzard's keen pursuit of improvement, it's almost a sure bet that we've got something grander in store. Let's just hope the hardware matches the ambition.
Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, PvP, The Art of War(craft) (PvP), Battlegrounds
Patch 5.2 interview with Dave Kosak
Inside an old alt's vault
The latest patch 5.2 news
All of the latest Mists of Pandaria news





Reader Comments (Page 3 of 5)
Jetstream May 17th 2009 1:55PM
The fact of the matter is, they're having the same problem Warhammer is with their huge RVR battles: The server hardware to handle that many people in one place throwing off huge graphical effects at once simply doesn't exist... Or if it does, it's so expensive that no one can use it in practical senses...
On another note, does anyone know how to change their password on this forum/comment/whatever? I'm sick of looking up my password every time I want to comment.
Sonnenwende May 17th 2009 4:20PM
My realm, Boulderfist (US), it's still laggy even after the hardware upgrade last week. It makes it nearly impossible for a melee class to do anything since you are seconds behind your target. If they really want to move traffic to the bg's, why don't they increase daily quests there and increase honor earned in the bg's? They could also increase prices on the gear to compensate for the over-awarding of honor from Wintergrasp...
dpoyesac May 17th 2009 1:58PM
Here are (I believe) Blizzards goals:
(1) Wintergrasp should be hella fun
(2) Wintergrasp should be a good source of PvP rewards and honor
The problem is that BOTH of these are failures, but for different reasons. (1) has failed because of the monstrous lag -- I can't actually do ANY single-target damage in the keep with my warrior because my target and I never really are where we seem to be on-screen.
They tried to fix (1) by moving objectives South -- which I thought was a good idea until EVERY WG became a zerg-fest. On average (on my server at least) it takes 10 to 11 minutes to drop the 3 south towers... but only 9 or 10 minutes to blast through the walls and capture. Often we're lucky if people even have time to destroy the first Southern tower. Since you can get your 10 kills from NPCs and the risk of losing increases the longer the WG goes on there is NO incentive NOT to win as fast as possible. So (1) fails AGAIN because zergs are not fun.
And (2) has failed because the rewards are TOO good. I leveled my hunter from 77 to 80 in part doing WG dailies and the MOMENT I dinged 80 I had killer PvP gear from shards, tokens and honor. The rewards are so good that every day you skip the WG dailies is a huge loss of potential gear. Since the new season started I have ALREADY replaced EVERY SINGLE ITEM that doesn't require arena points or a rating on my warrior, and most of the stuff on my hunter. That is a huge source of good gear for a tiny, little investment -- and that means EVERY (well, almost every) 77+ online is in the zone for every battle, because the rewards are too good to pass up.
So... maybe the change to weeklies will fix the failure of (1) and (2). I really hope so, although I really thought the last rounds of changes would fix (1) but instead it made things worse. We'll have to see.
ermansup May 17th 2009 1:59PM
Player A and Player B are both in Wintergrasp, and near eachother. The server sends information about player A to player B and vice versa. For the purpose of this example, lets say that in this scenario the server performs two actions, one for each player.
Player C joins the party. Now the server sends information about player A to both B and C, and the same thing again for each player. Making the number of actions a total of six, two actions for each player.
Player D and E join the fun. Making the number of actions 20, four actions for each of the five players.
Now lets go forward in time until Player J joins, a total of 10 players now. Nine actions performed for each player, a total of 90. 4½ times the workload of five players.
Obviously reality isn't this simple, but I just wanted to point out the exponential growth of bandwidth and computational requirements when you add players to the same area.
It would require a massive upgrade in capacity to remove this problem. And even then the new lagless Wintergrasp would only serve to bring even more players into it, until the new improved capacity is again quickly overcome and the lag hell returns.
nexonexo May 17th 2009 2:03PM
Wintergrasp is an awesome way to gain honor, but even just doing WG gets you honor capped pretty quickly.
There needs to be a way to spend honor points other than the normal gear. Bind-to-Account items, purchased with honor poitns alone instead of just with WG mark and Stonekeeper shards would be great.
Personally, I love playing PvP instances, and the old BG's are great, but there is less incentive to pay ANY BG if I can't use the honor points I gain for SOMETHING. In that case, I can ONLY play WG when honor capped because the marks and shards there CAN be used to send honor to alts.
Make a feasible (and useful) honor point dump, and I'll go do other BG's when the WG dailies turn to weekly ones.
Wintersdark May 17th 2009 2:22PM
Changing the dailies won't affect how much WG I do. Honestly, WG is the first PVP i've enjoyed since pre-bg world pvp.
I really wonder if blizz gets it. WG has everything world pvp offered - the 'real' war feel, wildly varying opponents, truely epic battles. What's more, it offers that without the pitfalls old world pvp did like making it impossible for players uninterested in the battle do their own thing.
I'd FAR rather have somewhat laggy epic, huge battles than small, lame feeling bg style battles.
What they need is MORE wg style zones.
They could instantiate WG, not like a BG or dungeon but instead like a continent, so there is only one instance. You'd still get lag in the battle with very large battles, but it wouldn't spread outside the zone. Maybe not possible now with at, but it would be with later, similar zones.
Binny May 17th 2009 11:35PM
Initially, I was surprised that the Wintergrasp quest change was such a big deal. Then again, I run WG several times a day, and usually forget to pick up the dailies. It's never really mattered, since I've always had fun with it.
In another example, an acquaintance of mine is a hard-core PVPer who's been level 59 for as long as I've known him. He's been wearing the same mediocre green gear for at least a year, and yet, he loves it.
In my opinion, there will be enough people that love WG to keep it busy (and laggy).
Artificial May 17th 2009 2:27PM
"No matter how Blizzard tries to spin it, they're trying to dissuade players from participating in Wintergrasp."
I have to take issue with that statement. Without further qualification, the statement appears to be false. Reformulating it into a true statement: "No matter how Blizzard tries to spin it, they're trying to dissuade players from participating in Wintergrasp on a daily basis."
I don't see what's wrong with that, particularly if it helps improve the experience of everyone playing. It it accomplishes that, it will be true that they're trying to *encourage* players to participate in Wintergrasp. Just not all the time...
theRaptor May 17th 2009 3:04PM
People, Blizzard don't have a magic "make lag go away" button they have neglected to push. This is a problem common to any real MMO PVP game. A few years ago EVE:Online would grind to a halt with a 50v50 battle, these days I think they can do a couple of hundred a side. But the PVP alliances in that game have several thousand players, so they are constantly pushing the envelope of what the server can handle.
And the EvE server is one of the worlds most powerful supercomputers. I doubt Blizzard wants to go the expense of upgrading the multitude of WoW servers to be as powerful.
Kryxx May 17th 2009 3:35PM
If it is such common knowledge that there would be bad lag, maybe Blizzard should have thought about it beforehand. Instead, bring on the bandaid "fix".
Sador May 17th 2009 3:10PM
**Stomy said...
for the love of god people blizz has the best tech money can buy**
No they don't CCP Games, the creators/operators of EVE Online do. If you wanna see how Wintergrasp should work from a network perspective, look at the average Corp or Alliance war over there, which is similar or larger numbers of people than WG but the battles can go on for DAYS with minimal lag.
Ravell May 17th 2009 3:20PM
Maybe they should add like a second layer to WG maybe make it to were there is a objective in a instanced sky part above WG and have the results effect below on the ground. Air ship battles and stuff like boarding party's and flyers and what not would be fun but of course they would have to limit how many people go up there so not everyone goes and no one defends the keep, maybe like 45 people can go up or something
Avan May 17th 2009 4:03PM
People keep asking why they don't just instance WG. Here is why:
Essence of Wintergrasp.
EoWG affects the entire Northrend server. It doesn't just affect the people that were in WG, it doesn't just affect all of us 80s, it affects everyone. New level 68 just stepping off the to Northrend? 5% extra experience for them. Hardened level 80 out at the Steppes of Life? Higher drop rate on eternal life for them.
Now, by making WG instanced, that would subject the battleground to being global. You won't be playing against just the people of your own server anymore, you'll playing against everyone of your battlegroup. Playing against your battlegroup means that there will be far more than the 200 people playing. There will be closer to 3200 trying to play at one time. (There's at least 16 servers per US battlegroups.)
The EoWG thing doesn't become a simple "give it the winning faction of the battlegroup" because you can't have one battle going on with 3k people. With the mixing of players between servers, you can't have multiple battles going on at one time because Horde Player A from Server X might win a battle at 13:37 server time, while Horde Player B (also from Server X) might have lost a battle at 13:38 server time. Which battle determines if Horde on Server X gets the buff?
So, can anyone come up with a way that the winning faction still gets EoWG?
Now let's talk gathering, farming, and elementals.
If WG becomes instanced, how will people be able to go farm the mining and herbalism nodes? How will people be able to fish for fish exclusive to WG, or for the dailies? How will people be able to go farming for eternals off the revenants?
If you have to go into instanced WG to get those, then you're still not addressing the issue of these people affecting the tenacity levels during a battle. If you can just go into the world version of WG, then how will revenants and their eternals be handled? Remember, having EoWG means revenants drop eternals; You'll still have to address the EoWG thing to make farming work right.
Vault of Archavon. You need to have EoWG to get in. You get kicked out when a battle starts. Because there will have to be multiple battles when you factor in the 3k players, which battle says it's time to get out of the pool?
Stone Keepers Shards Vendor: What you can buy changes depending on if you have EoWG or not. The vendors location changes, too. Look, another issue that goes back to figuring out what to do with EoWG!
Now, this all assumes that by making WG instanced, that it'll become an official battleground, and behave like one. This assumption is made based off the fact that instances, like Ulduar, Nexus, Ragefire Chasm, are all restricted to groups of players. You have to be partied up before going inside; You can't walk into these instances separately and see each other before partying up.
Who remembers the Deeprun Tram? It's a world instance, so you can walk around in it carefree without a group and still see other people. Wintergrasp could very easily work like this, though there are still issues at hand. Namely, player limits. A lot of people seem to want WG instanced to cut down on the people who farm in WG and affect tenacity. Refer to the farming part a few paragraphs up.
There are a lot of things wrong with making WG instanced. This comment only lists the start of them, but there are definitely more things to consider. A lot of these things would need consideration because you can't just adapt WG to be an instance as WG wasn't designed to be an instance. Many of the things that makes WG tick is because it's set in the world, and changing that will jam a gear somewhere. Don't forget about Essence of Wintergrasp, too.
ReagenSmash May 17th 2009 4:05PM
Here's a novel idea, stop the crier or whatever his name is from letting people know that wg is going on. I can't remember the times that i was'nt thinking about and joined becuase i heard that message.
Quite honestly, i have no sympathy for blizz if there worried about lag cause of too many people. Then dont have a npc yelling to everyone in distance of the surely @1 spot for someones hearthstone location that the battle is occuring.
Avan May 17th 2009 6:15PM
Arcanist Braedin? I hate that guy so much. How come it's only the alliance who get constantly notified of WG going on? Another shining example of ally favoritism. Yes, horde can see the messages too, but they're aimed at the alliance.
Get Off My Lawn!
Avan May 17th 2009 6:25PM
Oh, joy! The commenting system ate the last half of my comment.
Get Off My Lawn! It's an addon that makes Braedin STFU. You can find it on Curse. Great addon, makes other things go away like 24 other people getting their emblems.
MisterM May 17th 2009 4:39PM
I was a bit surprised at the overall simplicity of WG when I first played it (which is also part of it's mass appeal). Here are some of my fantastical ideas that could make the zone a bit more interesting, and possibly spread out the players at the same time:
- Introduce a new vehicle, or tweak an existing vehicle to fire over a much greater distance for the assaulting team. This would encourage the defenders to exit the keep and hunt down these long range vehicle "snipers" who are bombarding their walls. Perhaps this vehicle could also only be created at the Southern workshops.
- Allow the bridges to be destroyed (the assets and animations already exist for the destroyed bridges in the game files). This would hinder the progress of the new long range bombarders.
- Instead of simply breaking down the keep door, place an objective in each of the three outer courtyards which must be controlled by the attackers in order to make the door vulnerable. Zero points controlled means the door is invulnerable, while every additional point controlled will multiply damage to the keep door.
- Tune the battle so that it can last closer to 45-60 minutes. The larger time commitment will cause a certain percentage of players to think twice about jumping into battle, rather attracting anyone with 15-20 minutes to spare (assuming the battle goes well, which everyone hopes it will). Lock the battle to new participants at the 30 min mark, and apply a debuff to deserters who leave early if things aren't going well (the higher your battle rank, the greater the debuff).
I'm sure a million holes could be found in these ideas since I didn't put too much thought into them. The point is, it all boils down to creating compelling reasons for players to spread out, rather than focusing on the single point of the keep door. I hope these weekly quests are only a temporary solution, and WG goes through some retooling sooner rather than later. Don't forget how much AV has evolved over time as well.
Avan May 17th 2009 6:19PM
I love the bridge and vehicle ideas. With a bit of refinement and testing, that would be a much better way to get players to spread out around the maps. It would also put emphasis on either capturing or destroying the southern factories, to stop the offense from producing these machines.
edward May 17th 2009 8:29PM
Your long range siege sounds absolutely fun, and it sounds a like a great way to 'renew' WG in a future patch.
AlphaRhino May 17th 2009 4:42PM
Regardless of the money blizz is making, its a business its only purpose is to make money. To expect them to drop millions of dollars to upgrade whats a very small aspect of the overall game play is crazy. From a consumer standpoint the change is awful, as every nerf is. If you take a second to look at it from there point of veiw, removiing just a small portion of the people for very low expense is a win until even bigger action is deemed necessary. Clearly the lag is stopping very few people.
What i do think is a bad idea is tenacity. It does'nt help balance, all it does is make someone a one man wrecking crew. Tenacity generally equals loss in my experience. Though sadly i wish i could occasionally have it. A loss is worth running around with 90 k health 2 shotting people with 30k lava bursts every once in awhile