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 2 of 6)
Prelimar Dec 17th 2010 8:23PM
came here to sign on to the list of people who love wintergrasp.
Xantenise Dec 17th 2010 8:43PM
WG would be an amazingly fun BG.
Kylenne Dec 17th 2010 8:51PM
All these rose-colored glasses have got to be worn by people on faction balanced servers, or who are on the numerically dominant faction of their lopsided server. Because if you had the misfortune of being in the grossly outnumbered faction on a lopsided server, Wintergrasp was hell until damn near the end of the expansion, when they *finally* managed to address the issue properly. And naturally, by then no one cared about VoA. There are seriously Horde on my server who were 80 for months and had no idea what a Stone Keeper Shard was.
That's not to say Tol Barad doesn't have its issues, but the queuing system is one of its few selling points. If you find it grossly unfair that you can't queue because your faction has 40 billion people in it as opposed to the other faction's 10? Sorry, but spare me the crocodile tears. Tol Barad's queuing system isn't the problem here. It's the faction imbalances themselves that are the problem, and Blizzard exacerbating them by doing shit like inexplicably allowing faction/server transfers to the dominant faction on imbalanced servers. I don't know a single imbalanced server that didn't get even more lopsided since faction switching became available, as people in the minority got fed up with the frustration and switched to the "winning" side. If people like that get kept out of Tol Barad, it's nothing but schadenfreude to me, and they only have themselves to blame.
Pyromelter Dec 17th 2010 9:56PM
Kylenne, I agree with the faction-imbalance.
But it also sucks to have it be like 2v2, 3v3, in such a large battleground.
When you would get a large amount of even players, WG is just as fun as AV. Instancing WG would basically guarantee large groups of even numbers.
I think no matter what blizzard does, it will never match the number of pvp'ers on a server. That's what makes (generally speaking) instanced bg's a lot more fair than things like halaa, WG, tol barad, etc. Maybe not perfectly fair, but at least more fair than it is now in those places.
Broken-toes Dec 17th 2010 11:56PM
Never even been to tol barad yet, nor have I tried. Problem I have with this and WSG is that it requires too much reliance on people working together (same could be said about bg's in general i spose) and on certain realm+factions that just doesn't happen.
I know my realm Auchindoun EU had a free transfer from another realm (just a pure alliance pvp realm), the alliance came over and just owned WSG. I don't believe that happened that's just the tale in /defence when we lost again- in amongst the heavily CAPS'D "ZOMG U *&*&**&*&*&*^^%^%^$%$@@ NOOOOOOBS!".
While I'm fairly sure the alliance on our realm just went and did what they were meant to do, I've got a soft focus image of a chat box with "more defence on towers" and some god forsaken gnome actually moving to help defend, our lot it's just silence we're all gonna clump at the gate/wall and stay there.
There needs to be some punishment for not following orders, I know that putting that in opens a whole other can of worms, but if you made TB or WSG instance BG's I can guarantee it will just end up with a massive HK farm in the middle, no matter who's controlling. It's really a impossible task to fix, but from what I've heard the place is well and truly broken. I know it's not even mentioned in trade- I've never once seen "TB's up come on guys for the horde". Only reason I knew it existed was because I noticed the portal when I was heading back to highlands, and i can farm aszhara's veil with out goin back to vash'jir.
Whole thing seems like a half arsed measure, forgotten about half way through beta.
Aaron Dec 18th 2010 7:54AM
Making WG into a BG is a GREAT idea! It should be done immediately!
Aaron Dec 18th 2010 7:59AM
Wintergrasp as an instanced Battleground? *drools* I think we need to start a thread over in the battlenet suggestion section!
DarkWalker Dec 18th 2010 8:15AM
One idea: make it some kind of "reverse instancing".
For the duration of the battle, if the number of participating players would be below half the max number of players, pick two or more realms with complementary populations and join their Tol Barad zone for the duration of the battle. Apply the results to all involved realms.
If done correctly, players in the dominating factions of all involved realms get much more chance at even participating in the battle, and everyone gets bigger battles.
aramis Dec 19th 2010 3:55AM
You know, after 2 years of having WG for one day a week because Alliance ridiculously outnumbered Horde on Proudmoore, I'm going to say that Tol Barad has given us equal opportunity to gain access to a raid boss and extra dailies.
I'm finding that the only ones crying about this issue are the ones who were accustomed to fighting in and maintining control of Wintergrasp.
Now all of a sudden the otherside is gaining control of it, disrupting the natural order of your respective server life, and that somehow makes the game mechanics fail.
I'm sorry, but from all of us who were respectively screwed for two years: eff. you.
I'll agree that TB heavily favors the defense, but just as well, shouldn't it? I mean, you wouldn't expect to just waltz up into another country's/faction's territory and ROFLPWN them into submission without some sort of challenge, right? And that was the problem with Wintergrasp on heavily unbalanced servers. For Proudmoore, Alliance won simply by outnumbering. That's not strategy or beauty in design.
I'd say right about now with the current mechanics, control of TB goes back and forth on Proudmoore with Alliance having it for a few days, then Horde. And I really think that's how it should be. No side should have it 95% of the time, which was the case for Wintergrasp on this server.
And for servers (like Dark Iron where alts of mine resided), Wintergrasp was shared equally, nothing has changed. Yes attacking is hard, but once you've successfully gained control, you can rest assured knowing that defending it will be a little easier and that you won't lose it after just two hours.
ferretrogue` Dec 20th 2010 2:07AM
I agree with kylenne, those of us on the low side of unbalanced servers had hardly any access to VoA and such for near the entire wrath exspansion, so i do not feel that bad winning in an actual fair fight and i'm sorry to say this but now you know how we felt being locked out of content.
Arladris Dec 20th 2010 10:06AM
What if Blizz did both instancing and timed battles in the game world? Give the game world battles extra rewards or the instanced ones less to give incentive to play the game world battles. This allows all the associated buffs to the game world, e.g. Essence of WG, to stay in place and allow instanced play.
Meatwadz Dec 20th 2010 1:40PM
WG is amazing and I still get a group of friends to queue for some easy honor points. Even at 85, there are probably 5-10 people per side so it can still be enjoyable.
Alavan Dec 29th 2010 1:07PM
I second this. Please make WeeGee a BeeGee
Darthawesome Dec 17th 2010 7:16PM
Another suggestion would be to increase the allowed ratio of attackers vs defenders, in addition to the above fixes. The more attacking players after each successful win, the harder a successful Zerg defence would be....
Some server factions have a hell of a time getting in to the battleground as is, due to the equal number restriction. At least while on attack, more people could potentially experience the battle.
Xsinthis Dec 18th 2010 2:51AM
while an excellent idea for the balance part of it, it would worsen the que times in many cases. Imagin, a handfull of alliance attacking, and even less horde allowed each time cause the ratio of Attackers:Defenders keeps increasing
Twill Dec 18th 2010 5:04AM
@Xinthis.
It is actually GOOD for queues if you increase attackers instead of decreasing defenders.
Accomplishes the same thing
Bossy Dec 17th 2010 7:20PM
It took 1.5 years before WIntergrasp was really tuned and exciting to fight in.
A pity it is now completely ignored as I had much fun in fighting in WIntergrasp this summer.
At the same time I was "lucky" to be in the beta to see Tol Barad. Even in its earliest form it lacked the epicness of that one giant Fortress Siege in WInteergrasp.
All I remember was the zerging by the defenders in TB. I think TB - when played - was always in the hand of the Horde and you couldn't even enter it on the beta server.
Admit it: Wintergrasp in the last 6 months stood miles above TB in gameplay fun. And I have this nagging feeling that this time it will not be fixed (like they did with Wotlk).
--------
I really really get the impression Blizzard is more and more using its B team on WOW.
Too many bugs, too many wrong decisions, too much imbalance in the early leveling, too much screwed up decisions like mana shortage for a crucial class as healers.
At this time - despite the beautiful redone basic world, CATA gets a B- (75%) for me and that's 20% under the previous releases (both expansions and Vanilla).
BTW it IS also the only WOW release that scores UNDER 90% at the moment on gamerankings on the web....
SR Dec 17th 2010 7:42PM
While I do agree that some of the decisions were poor, I wouldn't say that Cataclysm as a whole was done poorly. The new zones and the streamlined quests are so amazing... I don't mind doing it all over again on another toon.
As for healer mana shortage, all I gotta say is... That's pretty much what the playerbase wanted. You can essentially make the tanks and DPS easier to die and achieve the same effect, but that's contradicting their philosophy of trying to prevent spiky damage. Players wanted more challenging content, and that's what they got. And I'm sure a lot of us already /ragequit.
As for the imbalance of Tol Barad... In my last server (Detheroc), it was literally once in a purple moon that we had Wintergrasp, since our server was so horde-oriented. And now, in Medivh, the horde literally never had the snowy fortress. While these outdoor PVP zones might be fun for properly balanced realms, there'll always be a faction that's getting screwed over, and not even tenacity could solve it.
Don't get me wrong. I still think Tol Barad is unbalanced as hell. But just as Wintergrasp never got a proper repair for it, I doubt there'll be one for something that's... well, THIS screwed up.
Hail Dec 17th 2010 7:43PM
Pick one: B- or 75%. A B- would be 80-83ish%, and a 75% would be a perfect C.
N-train Dec 17th 2010 7:44PM
WG, IMO, was epic when you had even teams, anytime else it tended to be a blowout and a waste of time for the smaller faction.
That being said, Cata has been out what, 10 days? Even counting the beta (which isn't a flawless way to test anything), you're comparing something that was improved over two years versus something that has been on live servers for a week an a half.
These world-pvp zones aren't as easy to balance and to work out as normal BGs because you actually have something riding on the whole thing and don't have half of North America to pool your players from. It's clear that TB has some broken elements, but to deem it lame and (as an above poster said) unfixable at this stage is silly, imo. I'm positive that once there's a larger pool of 85 players (it has only been 10 days) and they're ready to start raiding we'll see some changes that will attempt to fix it.
As for your last point(s), I'll just say this: Never in the 3 years that I have been playing this game have I had as much fun as I've had since 4.03a dropped. They changed a lot in this game and that means its going to have some glitches and some bugs in it, but overall I'm enjoying everything they've done with Cata so far.