Skip to Content
12-18-2010 @ 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?
First time? A confirmation email will be sent to you after submitting.
Members enter your username and password.
Enter your AOL or AIM screenname and password.
Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments.
When you enter your name and email address, you'll be sent a link to confirm your comment, and a password. To leave another comment, just use that password.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.