The problems with Tol Barad (and how to fix them)

There are six distinct problems with Tol Barad at the moment:
- Defending Tol Barad is too easy.
- The cap mechanics to secure capture points make it too easy to switch.
- The towers in Tol Barad that grant extra time to the attackers have no reason to be defended by the defending faction.
- Tol Barad's victory condition for the attacking faction has created a frustrating environment in light of the mechanics at play in the battleground.
- The graveyards are skewed in favor of the defenders.
- The losing side in Tol Barad receives no Tol Barad commendation for participating in the battle, while the winning team receives three.
The typical Tol Barad
Here's how Tol Barad usually goes when two full raids of players are pitted against each other on the island. The defending faction, which spawns in the middle of the island, moves to one of the three capture points as a group and waits. The attacking side moves to one of the capture points and begins to capture. Defenders are left at the capture point to guard against incoming enemies and to hold the point for the attacking faction. All three points must be held by the attacking faction to win Tol Barad.
As soon as another point is captured (and in most cases, beforehand), the defending team's zerg overruns the first cap point and, because of the way the cap mechanics work (more people = faster cap), switches the cap point almost instantly. The defending zerg then stays at this point until another point swaps in the attacker's favor. The cycle repeats, and after 30 minutes of running around in circles, the defenders have successfully defended Tol Barad.
Strategy should come into play in these battlegrounds and contested locations. Let's answer some common questions and rebuttals to Tol Barad first.
Why not just add more defense to each cap point? The problem is not the skill of the players or even the number of players on defense, but the cap mechanic. Each point can be capped by just having faction members present in the area, not the destruction of the forces there. The side with more forces around the flag begins to capture it. You could have 40 Alliance attacking 35 Horde on top of a capture point and the bar would immediately begin to move in the Alliance's favor. You do not need to vanquish your foes on the flag in order to begin to cap it, and the number of people you have on top of the flag makes the bar move faster with no upper limit.
What this results in is ultra-fast capping by a zerg of defenders against attackers who cannot even use their survivability to hold a point. It doesn't matter how good you are, because it's only a numbers game. Ten of the best Alliance soldiers will not be able to defend a point against 30 Horde grunts, even if those 10 Alliance soldiers were the best players on the server and could easily defeat their haphazard enemy. The instantly lose because of the cap mechanic.
The attackers can destroy the towers and get extra time. Extra time and nothing else. In Wintergrasp, the towers were powerful objectives because without them, the defending side lost a significant buff and the attackers lost their most precious resource, time. By lowering the amount of time they had to capture the fortress in Wintergrasp, defenders stood a better chance and made it harder for the attackers to win. The Wintergrasp towers changed the victory condition of the battle; what once was an easy, slow push to the relic chamber became a fast scramble to plow through the walls and win as soon as possible.
Conversely, Tol Barad's towers do nothing for anyone to change the victory condition of the battle. Adding time does not change the way to win -- you still have to capture all three points at once, while the zerg runs from point to point, recapturing in seconds what took minutes to achieve. Adding time does not hinder the defense in any way, unlike Wintergrasp, where the towers were powerful to both sides because they changed the victory conditions. Right now, there is no reason to defend the towers in Tol Barad.

Making Tol Barad harder to defend would go a long way toward allowing both sides access to the new content and dailies, as well as allowing the playerbase to devise new ways to win and succeed at the battleground. The problem has manifested itself as a way to surely win the fight and keep the defense, instead of making it possible for a skilled and strategy-oriented group to overcome the zerg defense. Strategy does not matter when the only factor that decides how a point is capped is the number of people in the area.
Broken capture mechanics
There are two problems with the cap mechanic in Tol Barad. First, you do not need to rid the area of enemies before the bar starts to move for your faction, and second, the deciding factor of how fast the bar moves scales with the number of people in the area. I understand why the first issue is present -- keeping respawn timers low means more time for players to jump into battle. The last thing someone wants to do is run into battle, die, and then have to wait 30 seconds for a rez. So let's leave the first point alone.
The second point is where the problem lies. Forty people bum-rushing a point results in 30 defenders having the point ripped from under them because they don't have the numbers in the area, despite being able to defend the area. And with the defending team respawning so close to every point on the map, it is hard to overcome the zerg even with a zerg of your own.
Wintergrasp had multiple entry points into the fortress and required people to be spread out, defending the walls of the fortress with an actual, physical barrier between the enemy and their prize inside the fortress walls. Tol Barad has no boundaries or walls -- every person is free to run from place to place, and no area is blocked away from the attackers or defenders.
The problem with the Tol Barad towers is that they do not change the victory condition for either side. Rather, they prolong a static victory condition that actually gets harder to accomplish the more time you are given. Wintergrasp's towers provided a buff to the attackers to help them fell the walls and were important to defend. If you destroyed the towers in Wintergrasp, a battle that was supposed to take a longer amount of time was suddenly cut short for the attackers, forcing them to change strategy as a result of their new victory condition.
The towers in Tol Barad need to change the victory condition for the attacking team in order to make them valuable to defend for the defending faction.
Victory conditions that never change
No matter how good the attacking faction is, the defending faction still only needs to hold one point in contest in order to successfully win Tol Barad. This means that a zerg defense can just run from point to point and steal a point out from under a capable and sizable offensive force just by numbers. As a result, Tol Barad rarely changes hands.
There needs to be a changing victory condition that allows the attacking faction to do something to break the defending faction's strategy and force a different approach. As of right now, there is nothing preventing the defending faction from turtling up in one place and never leaving or running from point to point as a group. It's not that this isn't a viable strategy -- it's just too hard to break. Wintergrasp had this strategy, but because of the size of the map and the many different entry points into the fortress, one large group would take too long to traverse from side to side, where a split force could take on many different fronts.
Tol Barad is much smaller than Wintergrasp, and as such, moving from place to place is much easier and takes less time. Therefore, the victory condition in place for such a small location coupled with the capping mechanics of numbers and not the presence of defenders means that the defense have a huge advantage -- an advantage that the attacking faction has no way to break.
Graveyards that favor the defenders
The original idea for the graveyards in Tol Barad is sound: The attacking force respawns close to the point they are trying to capture to give them an advantage in capturing. The travel time that the attackers save allows them to grab a few more ticks on the capture bar before reinforcements arrive. That works. The problem comes from the defending faction resurrecting in the middle of the map, an equal distance to any of the capture points. Instead of beating back the force that they had originally been fighting tooth and nail against, they'll find it easier to run the same distance to another capture point. There is little consequence to death for the defending faction.
Graveyard positions either need to be changed or spawn times changed to compensate the attacking faction for the defender's innate ability to get from one capture point to the other in the same amount of time it would take for them to refortify the point at which they died. It might not seem like a huge deal, but that proximity imbalances the entire fight, since death is so much more destructive for the attackers than the defenders.

In Wintergrasp, the winning side received three medallions for successfully winning, while the losing faction received one medallion for participating. This gave incentive for the losing faction to play, even if their faction was outnumbered and out-skilled -- you still gained something from playing.
Tol Barad gives three Tol Barad Commendations to the winners and none to the losers. The incentives are only the honor points gained, but the allure of Tol Barad are the unique rewards from spending those commendations at each faction's respective quartermasters. Why not give the losing side one commendation for playing in a contested zone that has specific rewards using those tokens?
How to change Tol Barad
Tol Barad needs to change, and here's how I propose to do it:
- Make the towers worthwhile by changing the victory condition associated with them. When all towers are up, the attacking side must capture all three points to win. When all towers are down, the attacking side must capture and hold two points when the timer runs out.
- By having the towers actually matter in the battle, you force the defending zerg to break up into groups to defend many positions and the attacking zerg to break up and capture different points, as their victory condition can change depending on where they put their forces.
- Change the capping mechanic to cap out at a certain number of people that can contribute to the sliding bar. For example, have the number of people who can contribute to capping be 20, so that overkill on that amount means that those people in excess of 20 are wasted by either side to cap. Instead, those forces would be better elsewhere on the battlefield. This also makes each capped spot more valuable, as they would not change hands as frequently.
- Give the winners of Tol Barad three Tol Barad Commendations and the losers one Tol Barad Commendation.
I love Tol Barad. The design is gorgeous, the lore is amazing, and the daily hubs associated with the content are the best Blizzard has done yet. The battle for Tol Barad itself is a mess and needs work, but it's far from unfixable, and I can't wait to see what Blizzard has in store for it.
World of Warcraft: Cataclysm has destroyed Azeroth as we know it; nothing is the same! In WoW Insider's Guide to Cataclysm, you can find out everything you need to know about WoW's third expansion, from leveling up a new goblin or worgen to breaking news and strategies on endgame play.





Reader Comments (Page 1 of 6)
xenite46383 Dec 17th 2010 7:06PM
My problem with Tol Barad is I have not been able to get into it..... since launch. :(
Pyromelter Dec 17th 2010 7:19PM
And that's another issue. Since blizz removed the "tenacity" mechanic, a lot of (especially horde) pvp'ers are locked out of it. I made the argument for an instanced Wintergrasp battleground just below; I think having both WG and Tol Barad be instanced and queue-able would be better for the majority of pvp'ers, just so they can actually play the darn thing.
I don't think people will miss the "Essence of Wintergrasp" type buff, and allowing both factions to do Baradin Hold (or VOA) at the same time isn't such a big deal.
Specifically regarding small sizes, yes, 5v5 in Tol Barad, that also isn't fun if you have a massive server imbalance. Instancing TB would solve that problem without having to resort to tenacity or forcing large numbers of players on one faction to sit it out.
Jeremy Dec 17th 2010 8:13PM
@Pyromelter: You say especially Horde, but that just depends on server population. On my server there are a lot more Alliance than Horde, so there's always a big queue time for TB for Alliance unless you queue instantly 15 minutes before the battle starts, right when it lets you.
Also, we have plenty of instanced battlegrounds. Wintergrasp and Tol Barad are unique because they are NOT instanced, so winning actually matters because it changes who controls an actual piece of territory, giving access to daily quests and raids. Turning them into just another BG is a terrible idea and destroys what separates them from BGs in the first place. Sure, there's balance problems, but I'd rather them keep trying different things to fix that than scrap the idea all together.
Pyromelter Dec 17th 2010 9:50PM
Jeremy, I didn't exclude Alliance - I know there are servers with an Ally>Horde imbalance. It's pretty well known that at least in EU and US zones, queueing for BG's is very long for horde, and almost instant for alliance. This tells me that generally speaking, there are a lot more horde pvp'ers out there.
I think you can make a case for Tol Barad being in-world in terms of the benefits you describe. And the fact that there is a difference there, makes them special, to be sure. But Tol Barad and Wintergrasp have their own tab for Achievements, just like instanced battlegrounds. Wintergrasp, one of the (if not the) most fun battlegrounds, is basically abandoned. At the very least, there aren't going to be any more epic 120 v. 120 or even 40v40 battles there going forward.
Overall, though, the benefits of having an instanced Tol Barad would seem to outweigh the costs. Is it really that important for one faction to shut out the other faction from a loot-piƱata raid and a few daily quests? Why not just keep Tol Barad a PvP flagged zone, and have both factions allowed to do their daily quests there?
I think a lot of pvp'ers, especially on faction-imbalanced realms, would much rather have access to doing Tol Barad regularly, then to be shut out constantly, or be in 5v5 battles. WG and Tol Barad are big areas that are meant for a large battle of epic proportions. Only way to consistently guarantee that is to instance it with the battlegroups.
And what happens with 5.0 hits, and no one does Tol Barad anymore? One of the greatest things about wow (in pvp at least) are the old school battlegrounds that are still really fun for many of us today - some love the strategy and challenge of Warsong Gulch, while others enjoy the scope, large scale strategy, and overall fun of Alterac Valley. Arathi Basin also is very fun with it's terrain and mobility restraints. These old-school BG's give the players a great replay value in WoW, and instancing WG and TB would be a great way to give players more value for their subscriptions.
Yes, keeping them in-world makes them more important on a per-realm basis, but frankly, I'd rather have a stable 40v40 battleground, then keep my boot on the throat of the other faction while they are shut out of those benefits (or even worse, have the other faction with a stranglehold shutting me out of those benfits).
tl;dr - I'd rather have a stable bg lasting the life of wow than potentially small battles with lopsided outcomes that will be gone once the next xpac hits.
A5 Dec 17th 2010 10:50PM
This is my problem too. I play on a low pop server with a TERRIBLE faction imbalance. I just plain gave up trying to get into Tol Barad after the 20th or so rejection (peak times, hitting queue as soon as it pops up). I've talked to people who got in and they've said you'll see 2 or 3 Alliance at the most.
Add that to the fact that the dailies in the Prison area are a death trap. Tol Barad and me just aren't meant to be I guess.
Knob Dec 17th 2010 11:27PM
I play on a server that's basically dead Alliance-side and Horde players barely get into Tol Barad battles.
As for the article, all these points had been brought up time and again on the beta forums. Many, many times did we tell Blizzard that the way it is set up is completely broken, but nothing was changed other than introducing the 1:1 matching system. Wonder how long it'll take Blizzard to acknowledge that the zone is broken.
Outdatedkero Dec 18th 2010 11:33AM
At least if your not in your no in the second raid group. If you are you cant get in siege engines. -.-
Oriflame Dec 18th 2010 12:44AM
Yeah... having to queue 10 times to get into a BG that's unwinnable isn't exactly my thing. Gotta agree with a lot of the posts here.
wanerix Dec 18th 2010 6:22AM
I'm alliance on a low pop server, really imbalanced server. WG was broke for most of the time for the lower pop faction most of wrath, but at least you had tenacity to try and help you out, i mean blizz changed things many times to try and make it better.. was still unwinable if the numbers got 2 out of balance. Problem is that most of the people on the lower pop sides were so excited when Tol was announced cause of the 1:1 and we figured that at least we would have a chance in a fair fight but everything else in the zone seems to be broken. So they had this idea to fix the imbalance of WG and remove tenacity but made it imposable to attack and win?. At least i got marks in WG when i lost. Alot of these problems come up because of the server imbalances and i cant believe blizz would design 2 bg's that are supposed to work great when balanced when maybe 10% of there servers are balanced. That leaves 90% of the rest wondering who designed this and why are they still working there.
When i started playing on my server 3 years ago it was 30% alli now its 8%. Which means 92% of the horde on the other side are screwed if they want in the fight. On top of that i cant win when attacking so I don't even Que for it. Sorry to all the horde out there but im not going to put 30 minutes into something when i cant win and get no reward for loosing. I can't believe someone at blizz did not put a map of this zone out on a table and use some plastic army men and run through the fight a few times (my point being any simulation would have identified the flaws) it takes about 10 minutes thinking on it to figure out that its broke and the mechanics you planed on are not going to work.
Lastly i really really like the idea of instancing both wg and tol, but only if tol's mechanics are fixed until it is im not going to Que for it.
DarkWalker Dec 18th 2010 8:02AM
Instancing Tol Barad and Wintergrasp can be done while keeping the feeling of having helped your faction control some territory by winning.
Just implement two phases for both Tol Barad and WG, one with each faction victorious. Then just give victorious players the buff for winning the battle, and send players to the appropriate phase based on whether or not they have the victory buff; players who won the battle recently see the area under control of their own faction, players who didn't participate, or who lost, see it under control of the enemy.
This would also be an incentive for queuing for the battle as a pre-made raid, in order to do the boss encounter just after the battle.
The same mechanic could be used for other old PvP zones, too.
BB Crisp Dec 18th 2010 3:16PM
I think Blizzard should try some sort of fusion between tenacity and 1:1 ratio. The problem seems to be that at either extreme, you run into issues that make the game unplayable for one faction or the other. With tenacity, you can provide each army with equal overall health and firepower (say, 10 alliance buffed up to match the damage of 15 horde), but that can't account for cc. Once you reach a ridiculous matchup of 10 v 50 or so, disables are too much to handle for the smaller team. It doesn't matter how much damage you can do if you can't move. Also, being massively outnumbered in a battleground that has capture mechanics makes in nearly impossible for the resulting "one man tenacity armies" to actually achieve anything. They could slaughter the enemy all day long, but being heavily outnumbered, they won't be capping anything.
On the flip side, a 1:1 ratio really limits the number of people available to actually join in on the fun. It perfectly achieves the goal of making it a fair fight and balances the classes as they were intended to be played for pvp, but can it be considered a solution when it denies so many people the opportunity to play?
What I would suggest is a mix of tenacity with something along the lines of a 2:1 ratio cap. This would allow Blizzard to break away from these two extremes and alleviate the issues that they create. For example, if only 20 alliance queue for Tol Barad, then the horde are capped at 40. The alliance forces would receive tenacity to put them at roughly double the overall damage and health (I don't know if tenacity works exactly this way, but you get the idea). Tenacity should also increase the "capping rate" of players by the same proportion. If there are 1.5 times the number of enemies, then each individual unit should cap at 1.5 times the regular rate to ensure that each army has an equivalent capping rate.
These numbers are only examples and could be tweaked to create whatever balance Blizzard would wish to create. They could make the gap narrower and allow only a 3:2 ratio, which would reduce the overall impact of tenacity and still provide some additional people to join in. They could decide that the mechanics of tenacity are still functional at a 5:2 ratio, which would allow more players to join.
Again, these are both imperfect mechanics that offer an imperfect solution, but I think they could be used to strike a decent middle-ground. Tenacity is impossible to balance when one force greatly outnumbers the other and a hard 1:1 ratio greatly limits the number of people allowed to play on imbalanced servers. Any thoughts?
Eirik Dec 20th 2010 3:08PM
As I understand it, the number of people who can get into Tol Barad is capped at "even with the opposition, with a minimum of 15.
If your server is imbalanced (yes, mine is), then simply gratis more of one side reached 85 before the other. Which means that the larger faction came up with the 15 minimum earlier than the other side, leading to that faction holding the defense early on.
The article points out that it's harder to attack than defend; the larger faction got there first. As the weaker faction trickles up to 85, they get pasted every time they try for TB, so they stop trying. They get trained out of it. Pavlovian-style.
The stronger faction keeps queueing because hey, they've got nothing to lose. Thus, stronger faction gets progressively stronger and more experienced in TB, the loser gets a rock.
This happened with Wintergrasp under Tenacity rules (doesn't matter how many HP you have if you're stunlocked), even with the charity loser marks. You can only lose so many times before you turn to other activities that are more rewarding.
Inygma Dec 22nd 2010 9:01PM
Actually the minimum number of people who can get into Tol Barad before 1:1 is enforced is 25. For some servers the only time the attackers have been able to win has been late at night when they take advantage of this fact and have games that are something like 9v25.
I think there are 2 main problems with Tol Barad. Firstly, there's the cap mechanics as mentioned in this article favoring zerging over actual pvp skill. Secondly, the victory conditions favors the defenders. To win as attackers you have to win 3 battles simultaneously, so assuming 3 equal sized attacking groups fighting 3 equal sized defending groups with a 50% chance of winning each battle, the attackers only have a 12.5% chance that they will win all 3 battles. If the cap mechanics were changed to limit the number of people contributing to a cap to 20, you might still see successful turtle strategies and successful zerg strategies because of the victory conditions still favor the defenders.
Gabrael Jan 18th 2011 11:48AM
Great article. I especially like the constructive criticism. Not entirely sure I agree with everything mentioned, but I'll get to that. By and large, however, I have to agree with McCurley's analysis.
Tol Barad does indeed need balance. Many other posters have already noted that folks get frustrated spending 30 minutes trying to get something done, only to have the defenders get another win due to the mechanics. What's worse, in my opinion, is that Blizzard has stated that they made the mechanics the way they did to induce participation. I can only palm my face at that type of logic making it through to the actual game.
I've been on both sides, more on the attacker side than the defender, but I can certainly see how the mechanics need to be changed. I agree with giving the defender one commendation for participation. You get in the queue and stick it out to the end, you should get something for that, win or lose.
I agree that the capture mechanic needs to change, and the defense needs to feel compelled to do something other than just zerg and hold one point. And I agree that this should tie in with the towers. Here is what I propose:
* As McCurley mentioned, put a player cap on the capture mechanic. 20 sounds reasonable to me. That way the attacker (of the point) is compelled to push the defender off of it in order to "cap" it.
* Have the towers / captured points provide a buff / benefit to each side. Defenders will get the benefit to start (say a 5% damage buff for example per tower), but as a tower falls, the benefit transfers from the defenders to the attackers. This induces the defenders to defend the towers and gives the attackers strategic options. Towers falling extending the play time is fine by me as well. If the defenders allow a tower to fall, not only do they lose the 5% buff, but their enemy now has it and will be able to use it against them for a few more minutes.
* Modify the victory conditions from all three points being required to achieve victory. Instead, go to a system used by Arathi Basin. Each faction gets some form of resource for how many control points they hold, and the rate these points accumulates goes up if all three points are captured. You could even include the towers in this equation. Rather than providing a buff (or in addition to that) they could also give the attackers a one-time resource point benefit when they are destroyed.
In any case, Tol Barad certainly needs some tweaking, and I think that Blizzard realizes this. I just hope they get around to seriously doing that tweaking soon.
Pyromelter Dec 17th 2010 7:14PM
The whole damn thing needs to be scrapped. They could honestly just copy and paste wintergrasp (my favorite battleground of all time), and the entire player base would be happy.
Or copy/paste with some modifications to fit the landscape.
Speaking of WG, it's sad how abandoned that place is. I wish blizzard could add WG to the "random battleground" queue and make it it's own instance. A 40v40 regular instanced "Wintergrasp" battleground would be really, really fun, and they could just open WG/VOA to both factions on the live servers - no one would miss it, I promise, especially if you could queue for it as an instanced BG.
Zaros Dec 17th 2010 7:24PM
WG is my favorite world PVP event. Making it a BG would be one of the best things for Blizzard to do.
erknost Dec 17th 2010 7:27PM
What a great idea... I totally agree with making WG like a lvl 80+ BG!
Bossy Dec 17th 2010 7:28PM
I agree with you 100%
It is terrible to ignore such a fantastic Siege fight in WIntergrasp.
Make it a 80 vs 80 BG with the same motivation to southern tower destruction and you have the best massive BG available.
To me WG was a work of art in Wotlk. You don't throw such things away like you did with the TBC open world PvP towers which nobody cared for.
Also the whiners complained about the tank riding: at least it was a nice diversion. But like always, they listened to the wrong people.
0rion Dec 17th 2010 7:30PM
And while they're at it, I would also really enjoy an instanced battleground version of Halaa, yet another great world PvP area that has fallen into disuse. Sure, perhaps it could use a few tweaks to bring it up to par, but all in all Halaa was very enjoyable, and most importantly it was different from all of the other battleground mechanics.
N-train Dec 17th 2010 7:57PM
Maybe I'm the only one, but I had my fun with WG but am ready to try something new, even if it's going to take some time to iron out.
As much as people seem to enjoy WG, I can't begin to imagine the QQ if Blizzard brought it (or something very similar) back as TB. Assault the fortress with siege weapons and towers gets boring after 3-4 years, no matter how you dress it up. Also all I heard from people after Wrath is that they wanted away with Vehicle mechanics where it mattered (raids, bgs, dungeons).
Making into a battleground I think is a good idea, it would keep it fresh and exciting and they wouldn't have to deal with the imbalance that often ruined it for so many people. That being said, however, WG matches tend to take about twice as long as other Bgs, so it would have to be modified in some way or another.