Blizzard releases new Cataclysm preview: Tol Barad
by Anne Stickney 
Nov 16th 2010 at 5:00PM
Blizzard has released another zone preview -- this time, it's the world PvP zone of Tol Barad, otherwise known as Cataclysm's Wintergrasp. Located off the coast of the Eastern Kingdoms, Tol Barad is a strategic point for both Alliance and Horde, making it a highly sought-after piece of property. Some highlights from the preview:
- Tol Barad is not only an open PvP zone; it's also a daily quest hub.
- Unlike Wintergrasp, Tol Barad won't have a Tenacity mechanic. Instead, players will be matched up at a 1:1 ratio, with a maximum of 80 players allowed in the zone.
- Much like Eye of the Storm, players will have to claim three keeps around the zone. Unlike Eye, if a player dies while defending a tower, that will directly affect the slider bar, moving it in favor of the opposing faction. So stay alive!
- Winning Tol Barad opens a raid, just like Wintergrasp. The Tol Barad raid takes place in Baradin Hold.
- And of course there are reputation rewards, including two brand new mounts with a ghostly look.
Check out the full post by Zarhym for more details, screenshots and information -- and check out our gallery of Tol Barad, below, for a closer look at the new zone.
World of Warcraft: Cataclysm will destroy Azeroth as we know it; nothing will be the same! In WoW Insider's Guide to Cataclysm, you can find out everything you need to know about WoW's third expansion (available Dec. 7, 2010), from brand new races to revamped quests and zones. Visit our Cataclysm news category for the most recent posts having to do with the Cataclysm expansion.Filed under: News items, PvP, Cataclysm
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Kyte Midnight Nov 16th 2010 5:02PM
Definately one of the things I'm looking forward to the most about Cataclysm.
dengarsw Nov 16th 2010 5:59PM
Not looking forward to this as much now. The thing about WG is that it mimicked old school PvP by having a capturable location like NPC towns that you tried to drive out other players out of. Since WoW is a level based game, and there's no loss of loot, the objectives and tenacity helped bring about the "war" feeling, where just because you had numbers, didn't mean you would win. The under dog can still win WG when they're out numbered through skill. Forcing a 1:1 ratio and capping it at 80 people per side sounds incredibly backwards.
If Blizz is really worried about faction zergs, implement a mercenary system for the winning side. If your side won, have some goblins around looking to hire winners to loan out to the losing side.
Rakah Nov 16th 2010 6:35PM
dunno why but i get the impression blizz is kicking themselves for releasing too much info far too early.
SamLowry Nov 18th 2010 12:22AM
If you outnumber your opponent 10 to 1, you'll win. Trust me on this one, I play Alliance on the Thrall server.
Kyte Midnight Nov 16th 2010 5:02PM
Definately one of the things I'm looking forward to the most about Cataclysm. A marked improvement over Wintergrasp.
Yomamma Nov 16th 2010 5:05PM
I can't wait to see this in action!!! A new raid, daily quests, new mounts, and no more tenacity!! Is it Dec 7th yet???
Natsumi Nov 16th 2010 5:54PM
yes
Mosios Nov 16th 2010 10:24PM
i think december 7 was a week ago, it feels like christmas :)
Saisen Nov 16th 2010 5:06PM
only 80 allowed in? if i dont hit the queue to enter wg the exact second it becomes available on my server it will be full (illidan, horde) so looks like its gonna be even worse with tol barad:(
(cutaia) Nov 16th 2010 5:06PM
Not looking forward to the 1:1 cut-off. On my server, I'm expecting to be told Tol Barad can't accept any more Alliance players on a pretty regular basis.
frugality Nov 16th 2010 5:12PM
As someone whose faction falls on the other end, I can say that this will definitely encourage me to PvP more. In fact, I would say that there is enough of a positive feedback loop for those factions who normally lose WG on live that there will be a balancing effect in encouraging more people who normally lose to continue doing it because they know that the other faction will not out number them three to one.
Kinda like the Halion fight, balancing between the two phases and balancing between those who win and who lose. Does that WoW analogy make sense?
jealouspirate Nov 16th 2010 5:18PM
Yeah, I expect the same for me only Horde-side.
It might have some positive benefits though. With Wintergrasp, you'd often have people faction changing to be on the side that dominated Wintergrasp, or people looking to transfer to a new realm wouldn't want to transfer somewhere where they'd never win Wintergrasp. With any luck, this trend of making the dominant faction more dominant will end, or at least slow down.
Even though it'll be hard for me to get into Tol Barad with this change, I still think the battles I get in will be a lot better as a result. Tenacity was a failed mechanic that resulted in a frustrating game for the smaller team and a boring game for the larger team.
frugality Nov 16th 2010 5:19PM
As someone whose faction falls on the other end, I can say that this will definitely encourage me to PvP more. In fact, I would say that there is enough of a positive feedback loop for those factions who normally lose WG on live that there will be a balancing effect in encouraging more people who normally lose to continue doing it because they know that the other faction will not out number them three to one.
Kinda like the Halion fight, balancing between the two phases and balancing between those who win and who lose. Does that WoW analogy make sense?
Ice Nov 16th 2010 6:07PM
I'm not sure is 1:1 on beta but in beta the battles go like this still:
40 horde vs 10 alliance and some unknown amount hiding on the map.. Alliance(attackers usually in beta) spawns at the bridge in north (see image 34 of 36) while horde(defenders usually in beta) spawns at middle instantly going to the bridge camping spawners and their GY for 20 minutes..well they are still immune at GY but unable to do anything at all.
Only at late there has been actual wins for alliance at all.
So I'm not totally sure is the balance going to work like in beta or is that just different case due noone actually wanting to play alliance on beta.
It will still need a lot of balancing in beta and will most likely not be totally balanced on first patch (like wg wasnt until something like 3.3..)
dpoyesac Nov 16th 2010 8:59PM
Many previously balanced servers (like mine) became imbalances because of two things: great WG loot, and allowing paid faction transfers.
Faction transfers aren't going away (too much money involved!) so the least Blizz can do is ensure overpopulated factions don't have an unfair advantage, with almost constant TB eaid access.
Magma Nov 16th 2010 5:14PM
While 1 to 1 might suck for people already on a said server, hopefully it will at least give a slight help to population balance, since people who care about pvp won't just transfer to a server where one side is like 10:1 the other. It might also get some people to faction change or move off the server, which would also help.
Matthew Nov 16th 2010 5:35PM
yes! and tenacity sucked ass for the underdog.
Zaros Nov 16th 2010 9:48PM
Good-bye tenacity. I loved you so.......
Kadamon Nov 16th 2010 5:19PM
There's going to be some massive problems if they're forcing a 1:1 ratio.
I've been on servers where one side maxes out in Wintergrasp and only 10 show up on the otherside.
That's going to cause a problem if it remains the same.
Natsumi Nov 16th 2010 5:49PM
I see no problem there. The only people that have an issue with this are going to be the people that A) can only do well in pvp if they outnumber their opponents by a huge margin or B) specifically race changed to the other faction so they could win WG every time. For the rest of us, this is a LONG OVERDUE CHANGE.
And before anyone thinks that people don't faction change to win WG, on my server 2 ENTIRE GUILDS and several players on my Friends or Ignore list are now standing across faction lines from me (which is fun, cause now I get to kill them while chatting with them on vent or for being total A-Holes in game :D )