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 5 of 6)
beaglesan Dec 18th 2010 12:58AM
The problem with WG and TB is that the tenacity change has shifted these epic battle zones, designed to comfortably handle 80 on 80 combat, has devolved into zones of world PVP where you will frequently have less people than a 10 on 10, or even an arena battle zone.
It is absurd, with most people locked out. I got in on my first attempt last night, waiting the whole time, only to get in with 15 seconds left before we got the win. Got in today, and oh, joy, it was 7 on 7 for most of the time, until finally maxing out at 11 on 11.
Artificial Dec 19th 2010 12:37AM
A zone designed for 80 on 80 combat may be silly as 7 on 7, but it's even more absurd as 80 on 7.
wow Dec 18th 2010 1:23AM
The problems with TB are only met and exceeded by the problems in this article.
Picviewer Dec 18th 2010 1:47AM
Sounds like someone(s) on the dev team at Blizzard played TF2 while they were developing this one as it uses the same point capture mechanics as the TF2 payload & capture maps. Get enough people around the cart to move it from point a-b-c-etc... replace cart with stand at a capture point and you have it.
Simple solution to this and WG to fix it again or balance it out, cycle control of the zone every 2 hours to a different faction control. You want to run something in the zone you have 2 hours to get it done, come back in another 2 hours etc...
Me I'll just go back to shaking my head in disgust as they waste Gilneas as a bg zone. Such a beautiful zone wasted......
NeoCloud61 Dec 18th 2010 1:58AM
These problems mean one thing to me.
Wyrmrest Accord Alliance will never experience Tol Barad quests/raid content.......ever.
farkran Dec 18th 2010 4:54AM
The only relevant problem is that defenders aren't forced to spread and play strategically. Forget the towers, make it 6 objectives and keep the 3-at-once victory condition. This will solve everything.
Felix_NZ Dec 18th 2010 3:50AM
Disclaimer: I haven't been to Tol Barad yet, but looking at the map and reading the criticisms of it. I think a TF2 'Gravel Pit' style thing could work. Defenders start in the middle, and either have to defend A or B (top and South East respectively), both points are fairly light on fortification but there's only one or two ways for the attackers to get to them. Once either have been capped, thats it, defenders can't retake them. Once both are gone, the defenders now spawn *behind* point C (SW) and this point is much heavier fortified and easier to defend, but now attackers are coming in from points A and B and need to overwhelm the defenders from multiple angles.
David Whyld Dec 18th 2010 3:53AM
Tol Barad is so horribly designed that I only ever queue for it when my faction is defending. If I happen to wind up in a battle where we're attacking, I just leave and do my dailies instead and come back later to see if we've won so I can do the other dailies. How did this one-sided mess ever make it out of beta? It's the worst thing I've seen since the Real ID fiasco.
Astalnar Dec 18th 2010 4:19AM
Sounds very much like encounter in A Clash of Kings by George R.R. Martin. The battle where Robb Stark captured Jaime Lannister. Jaie was attacker and he was moving all the time from one tower to another just to break barrier and at the end, defenders got backup and he got screwd.
Personaly, Wintergrasp was fun, entertaining and evolving. While Tol'Barad could use some improvements.
aercane Dec 18th 2010 6:25AM
Blizzard really hasnt done well without outdoor PvP, and battlegrounds in general have had a good share of non-starters (Gurubashi Catacombs, that one in Azshara). Wintergrasp had faulty cap mechanics from the start, so its surprising that they attempted it again with Tol Barad.
What were they thinking?
Jaynith Dec 18th 2010 8:30AM
This post addresses the problems of Tol Barad nicely IMO, except for the accessibility of it (which many responding are bringing up). I'm just putting in my two cents of frustration on the same matter. On Aerie Peak, the alliance GREATLY out number the horde, but it seems the better pvp'ers are on our horde side. So, not only do the majority of our dominate faction not have access to Tol Barad (pvp)... but the majority also dont get access to benefits of the winning side.
TALK ABOUT FAVORING THE MINORITY.
Artificial Dec 19th 2010 12:43AM
I strongly suspect Blizzard considers this a feature, not a bug. There is no way to solve the faction imbalance on a server unless and until you do something to reward people for being on the smaller end and penalize those on the larger end. If you don't make it suck to be in the majority, everyone will want to be there, and the problem will get worse, not better.
Mathguy Dec 18th 2010 9:04AM
I don't know what it's like on other servers but, on my main's the alliance guards in our spawn point don't attack the horde. This leads to two very well know horde guilds camping both our portal and our graveyard. I haven't been able to do a daily since hitting 85. Any idea as to when/if this will be fixed
Aedilhild Dec 18th 2010 9:42AM
I agree that Tol Barad's poorly balanced, but find the article's suggestions too complicated.
Since the objective is not only to capture but to hold, why not 1) link towers to the defender's ability to recapture locations within a time period and 2) penalize the defender for losing a location? For each tower that has been destroyed, capture bars could move respectively 10, 25 and 50 percent more slowly for the defender. And each recapture might also require more time from the defender. An attacking force accomplished in hit-and-run to win by 1) picking off towers, 2) then grabbing locations, and 3) then holding the locations long enough to run out the clock. A roving defending group would likely lose, since it couldn't immediately retake what it left unguarded.
Maccabeus Dec 18th 2010 10:47AM
why not just change the mechanic to who can hold the most towers by the allotted time limit. That would crush the zerg tactic, because if everyone rushed one tower, the opposing faction (if smart enough)could just split their force and grab the other towers the enemy is not defending. This would also place increased emphasis on defense, as well as making the extra time from the towers more valuable.
Say you are holding onto one tower and there are 3 minutes left in the game. Your team has just put together a plan of attack based on the enemies numbers at Tower B. Destroy a tower and gain more time for your attack team to succeed. OR don't destroy the tower, pray your attack goes well, and don't offer the enemy the chance to reciprocate. The tower mechanic has all of a sudden become incredibly important and highly tactical.
The GY problem can be solved by having an EotS/WG-type system, wherein players spawn at the graveyard closest to their base if they control no towers, or at the most recent tower they have captured, or even at the graveyard they are closest to that they control. That the defense has a a set graveyard spawn is a terrible idea. Not only does it encourage camping during an imbalanced game, it also serves to give the defense a leg up by allowing them to coordinate easier, whereas the attackers are spread out depending on their nearest graveyard location.
lazearian Dec 18th 2010 11:13AM
How about instead of having to cap all three towers to win making it a resource system, that why the defenders have to hold two points to win or the enemy will gain to much resource, also the towers can limit the amount of resource gained by the enemy during a time so they are more important to defend.
might change it to be a bit harder to defend
what do you guys think about me idea?
Dave-O Dec 18th 2010 2:12PM
It is obvious Tol Barad is not the only thing broken here. Blizzard for all that they do right, really messed up when choosing their beta testers. All the critiques mentioned in the article are logical and quite obvious. What were people doing those months when they were -supposed- to be giving feedback about game mechanics?
HeroJéz Dec 18th 2010 5:46PM
Lol Barad (I bet that hasn't been done before)..
... it's dog-shit.. don't bother with it in its current state. It'd be great to see some of the changed suggested. Like making it fun, balanced and fair.
dashrendar72 Dec 18th 2010 5:56PM
I prefer Fail Barad
suzuki Dec 18th 2010 6:55PM
I would even call it "lol barad" ;)