Upcoming changes to Wintergrasp, Tol Barad balancing details revealed
by Adam Holisky 
Apr 30th 2010 at 9:00AM
Zarhym was active on the forums last night detailing some of the new balancing mechanics in Tol Barad, the Wintergrasp-like zone that will be coming out in Cataclysm. In fact, it's so much like Wintergrasp that Wintergrasp itself will soon be updated with the new balancing mechanics.
In brief, the new mechanics are:
In brief, the new mechanics are:
- A minimum cap will be placed on the zone (which must be met by one faction, but not necessarily both). If that number is say, 25, then there might be a battle of 25 v. 5.
- Maximum cap will still exist.
- If there are only 50 Alliance players, the system will try to find only around 50 Horde players -- even if there are 200 Horde players queued.
ZarhymKeep in mind Tol Barad is still deep in development, but we do have plans to implement more stringent faction balancing measures than those which exist for Wintergrasp today. We want to have the queue system try to create a battle with as close to a 1:1 team ratio as possible. In other words, if 40 Horde and 150 Alliance players are in the queue, it's going to make the battle somewhere close to 40 vs. 40. There will be a maximum cap of players allowed on each side as there is with Wintergrasp, but there will also be a minimum cap as well. Since the system will be looking for a 1:1 team ratio, the minimum cap will be designed to ensure a battle can't be thrown by a faction if no one shows up. So, say if the minimum cap is 25, there is a chance the battle could be 25 vs. 5.
Because of this new design, it'll be much more beneficial to play on a realm where the faction balance is roughly equivalent rather than seeking a realm where your faction dominates. For this reason we'll continue to monitor faction balance on all realms and work to ensure players enjoy the best gaming experience possible.
The maximum cap will essentially work the same as it does in Wintergrasp. If there are hundreds of players in the queue for Tol Barad on both sides, the system is not going to overcrowd the zone and make it unplayable. It will create an even match with up to a certain number of players on each side.
The minimum cap is intended to prevent griefing from factions which are extremely underpopulated. For example, if it's 3 in the morning and the Alliance have a very low population on a realm, a single Alliance guild could decide to boycott Tol Barad. If there were no minimum cap with the 1:1 ratio queuing system, this could lead to a situation where Tol Barad ends up being a, say, 3 vs. 3 battle leaving many Horde players locked out. So if we set the minimum cap to 25, it means in this scenario that it would be 3 Alliance vs. 25 Horde. In other words, the underpopulated faction on an imbalanced realm can't fully dictate the battle size of Tol Barad all the way down to 0 participants on either side.
I just got word that we are planning on implementing this new balancing mechanism for Wintergrasp sometimes shortly after the next Wrath of the Lich King minor content patch. So you'll get a chance to see it in action and provide us with feedback prior to the launch of Cataclysm!
Your first example is correct.
For your second example, the battle would be 25 Horde vs. 10 Alliance.
The current plan is for Tol Barad to function like Wintergrasp with regard to your questions. So it will be a PvP zone at all times and flight will be disabled once the battle begins.
Because of this new design, it'll be much more beneficial to play on a realm where the faction balance is roughly equivalent rather than seeking a realm where your faction dominates. For this reason we'll continue to monitor faction balance on all realms and work to ensure players enjoy the best gaming experience possible.
Quote:
I hate to ask, but would you explain again how the maximum and minimum caps work, or shall I say how you think they are going to work? I'm a bit confused.
I hate to ask, but would you explain again how the maximum and minimum caps work, or shall I say how you think they are going to work? I'm a bit confused.
The maximum cap will essentially work the same as it does in Wintergrasp. If there are hundreds of players in the queue for Tol Barad on both sides, the system is not going to overcrowd the zone and make it unplayable. It will create an even match with up to a certain number of players on each side.
The minimum cap is intended to prevent griefing from factions which are extremely underpopulated. For example, if it's 3 in the morning and the Alliance have a very low population on a realm, a single Alliance guild could decide to boycott Tol Barad. If there were no minimum cap with the 1:1 ratio queuing system, this could lead to a situation where Tol Barad ends up being a, say, 3 vs. 3 battle leaving many Horde players locked out. So if we set the minimum cap to 25, it means in this scenario that it would be 3 Alliance vs. 25 Horde. In other words, the underpopulated faction on an imbalanced realm can't fully dictate the battle size of Tol Barad all the way down to 0 participants on either side.
Quote:
Will this apply to Wintergrasp?
Will this apply to Wintergrasp?
I just got word that we are planning on implementing this new balancing mechanism for Wintergrasp sometimes shortly after the next Wrath of the Lich King minor content patch. So you'll get a chance to see it in action and provide us with feedback prior to the launch of Cataclysm!
Quote:
So in cliff note form: With the minimum cap is 25, if 25 Horde que and 150 alliance que, the battle will be 25 vs 25. And if 25 Horde que, and 10 alliance que, will it then just 10 v 10 or 25 v 10?
So in cliff note form: With the minimum cap is 25, if 25 Horde que and 150 alliance que, the battle will be 25 vs 25. And if 25 Horde que, and 10 alliance que, will it then just 10 v 10 or 25 v 10?
Your first example is correct.
For your second example, the battle would be 25 Horde vs. 10 Alliance.
Quote:
1) Will Tol'Barad flag players between battles on PvE servers? Please say yes!
2) Will flying mounts be disabled in the zone when the battle isn't taking place?
1) Will Tol'Barad flag players between battles on PvE servers? Please say yes!
2) Will flying mounts be disabled in the zone when the battle isn't taking place?
The current plan is for Tol Barad to function like Wintergrasp with regard to your questions. So it will be a PvP zone at all times and flight will be disabled once the battle begins.
Filed under: News items, PvP, Cataclysm
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
Possum Apr 30th 2010 9:07AM
So....it's gunna be kinda hard to get into the actual battle if your faction dominates the server I guess. I suppose it will at least solve the massive lag problems that used to happen.
jealouspirate Apr 30th 2010 9:37AM
"t's gunna be kinda hard to get into the actual battle if your faction dominates the server"
This is exactly the point. Right now, people are just encouraged to pick whatever faction dominates. Perhaps this will cause people who can never get into WG to faction change, or pick a new realm with more even balance. We can only hope, anyway.
TheSipe Apr 30th 2010 9:55AM
I'm affraid though that on a server with major imbalance, the lesser side may end up with an advantage. If they have 25 skilled pvpers and the larger faction has 200 players with low to high skill levels, the lesser populated will always get to pick who goes. I forsee a few highly skilled pvpers on the lesser faction can just fight most rounds and assure victory, even if the larger faction has more skilled players but have to fight the queue. I'm willing to try it but I'm not sure it will balance much more than the changes made previously.
Rhabella Apr 30th 2010 10:09AM
@jealouspirate
"This is exactly the point. Right now, people are just encouraged to pick whatever faction dominates. Perhaps this will cause people who can never get into WG to faction change, or pick a new realm with more even balance. We can only hope, anyway. "
Because as Totalbiscuit has recently pointed out…The right thing for Blizzard to do is charge people to balance their realms for them when they have no quantifiable way to know if they are choosing an imbalanced server or not.
It’s not like when you log onto a new server to create a character, it provides a list of the total number of characters (or at least accounts) tied to each faction on that server. I don’t have a problem with paying for a server transfer as I have done so before because I wanted to change servers for no reasons associated with game play, but those players who wish to change servers based on the quality of life for the entire realm should be given a little more latitude than they are given currently.
Totalbiscuit did a great job explaining the issue on last week’s Blue Plz; you should check it out.
dawnseven Apr 30th 2010 10:22AM
"...when they have no quantifiable way to know if they are choosing an imbalanced server or not."
Excellent point. There are some websites you can use, and I did as much research as I possibly could before I transferred servers a few months ago) but the information is often dated, inaccurate, or both. It would be a whole lot better if Blizzard provided this information so we could make an informed decision before waving bye-bye to $25.
icepyro Apr 30th 2010 3:12PM
Whether or not to spend $25 on a transfer should involve more than looking at a website. Even if Blizzard did post the population statistics, there is no way to know how many accounts are truly active, how many people on that server like PvP and who dominates WG. Blizz is certainly not going to give those statistics out as that acts like a magnet attracting those who like to roflstomp and repelling those who are sore losers.
If you are serious about potential transfer, make a toon on the realm first. Play the AH a touch to get a quick few gold to pay someone to take you to Dalaran (selling mats from gathering skills was more than enough for me). After that, it becomes fairly obvious fairly quick (even before reaching Dal) that I have a decent idea of server population, balance, and who just owns WG. Just watching trade while you are doing your business shows a lot about the server. You could always ask questions on the forums too. I'm not sure of the response to "which faction dominates realmX", other related questions can give you a picture.
That's seriously like 2 days work at most and believe me you will know a lot more about how happy you will be there from experience than any statistics and opinions.
SR Apr 30th 2010 6:17PM
@TheSipe:
"I'm affraid though that on a server with major imbalance, the lesser side may end up with an advantage."
That's pretty much the point here; on my server, the Horde always has WG simply because there are so freakin' many of them and most of us have given up trying to take it, since we're just gonna get massive stunlocks anyways. You're gonna get stunned, you're gonna get ganged up on, and you're gonna die, no matter how skilled you are, if you're being outnumbered by almost 20 to 1.
THIS, right here, will pit skill vs. skill. If your faction starts losing because of this change, it will become apparent that the opposition doesn't necessarily have the skills to even DESERVE Wintergrasp.
Which concludes to: If you're bad, work on getting better. If you're not bad, this change is gonna be awesome. I hope.
Possum Apr 30th 2010 6:32PM
I chose my current realm for the sole reason that my friends played on it. On it horde out number alliance by a fairly large margin. Lots of people chose their own realms for the same reason. Why should I or any of these people be forced to faction change just to play in the new pvp zone? I like being horde, it's not about being the dominate faction, I'd play them either way.
Gothia May 2nd 2010 5:23AM
Yes and finally! Our server is so imbalanced that we see Voa once a month at 3am. This is a PvE server and believe it or not people faction changed just so they could face roll the lesser populated faction. The faction change option destroyed many servers and hopefully this change will set things right.
I guess Blizzard really does care and are not too proud to admit a mistake. Thank you.
warpstarmaster122 Apr 30th 2010 9:08AM
FINALLY
Now it really will be our own damn fault if we lose WG. -_- So tired of 15 Tenacity I could scream.
feniks9174 Apr 30th 2010 10:26AM
Tenacity goes below 20?
str8key2 Apr 30th 2010 1:36PM
you should see Earthen Ring's WG
It's been better lately, but the alliance always has 12-20 Tenacity
Zulnar Apr 30th 2010 9:09AM
I wonder if they ever implement any aerial combat in those zones...
Alastain Apr 30th 2010 9:11AM
I for one am very interested in how this mechanic plays out. To be honest, it's how I envisioned the capping of Wintergrasp side numbers should've been anyhow. I think it would only benefit both sides to have it become more skill-based than a 'numbers' game. (I.E. Whomever has the larger force wins. Especially on defense, where overwhelming numbers can just cause a lagfest with no advancing)
gapid Apr 30th 2010 9:13AM
well crap. there goes feeling like a god with 7 stacks of tenacity. my ego is going to take a big hit from this.
Freakprince00 Apr 30th 2010 9:14AM
I have been suggesting this solution to my friends for months now. Since I started playing wintergrasp, my server has always had an attitude of "If we show up, we'll have a tenacity of 17. Graveyard camping in t-minus 3 minutes."
Honestly, most of the wins i have witnessed in wintergrasp from my faction have been at 3-4am, where neither side has tenacity, and it's 15 vs 15. And during those games, even if we lost, i still had a ton of fun. Whenever i went to WG during peak hours, the opposing side would be rolling multiple raidgroups deep, while our measly raid of 12 people (and no, not 52 people in the zone, since i /who wintergrasp each time) would get roflstomped and GY camped.
Kudos to Blizz for implementing something to finally curb the imbalance that has plagued us since before paid faction changes.
Possum Apr 30th 2010 9:20AM
Close battles *are* the most fun. Roflstomping is utterly discouraging for the loser and a little boring for the winner. Your heart doesn't pump when you gank a newb but when you just manage to survive a sneak attack from a rogue.
charlie Apr 30th 2010 11:53AM
Ah, the 3am time slot.
Something does need to be done for those unbalanced servers. I play both sides on my server, and I just did a WG as Alliance and there were two horde....against 2 full raids of alliance. Kudos to them for staying, 1-shotting everything, but with no vehicles available it wasn't to be, obviously.
On the horde side there are rarely enough to win, so people don't bother to queue, and so never win. Vicious circle.
I'll be interested to see what these changes do here :)
xquarkds9x Apr 30th 2010 9:16AM
Honestly it seem's like no matter how much Blizzard tries to fine tune Wintergrasp, there will always be servers where one faction dominates the other and will still hold Wintergrasp the majority of the time. On my server the Alliance actually holds Wintergrasp 98% of the time, simply because not enough horde are on during the day to even try to take it back from Alliance, and when there is the rare time when they have enough on their faction, they still can't take it from us!
At any rate, will be interesting to see how this plays out.
GrumblyStuff Apr 30th 2010 1:38PM
WG and the like are nice ideas but with faction changes and multiple servers, it just doesn't work. Reading about these changes makes me wish it was just another BG at this point.