A response to upcoming Tol Barad changes, page 2

We ultimately want to make sure that any changes we make are all steps in the right direction, and we intend to make several updates in the next minor patch to address design and balance issues affecting attackers that we can't address with hotfixes. For example, we plan to alter the battle slightly so that a team with two bases captured can more quickly and easily capture the third, as opposed to a team with one or zero bases. This way, if the defenders turtle up, it'll be a little easier for the attackers to take their last base before the defense can take one of the attackers' other bases.
Now, here's where this type of article fails me, when we only get one piece of an obviously larger pie. People are going to come out of this article thinking this is the only change that is being made, despite it clearly stating that this is an example of one of several changes. In order for the change mentioned above -- making the third capture point easier for the faction that already controls the other two -- you need to address other factors.
The key problem in Tol Barad is the defender's zerg that easily overcomes any attacking force that is holding down the fort at one of the capture points. A quick recap: When a defender dies, he respawns at the center of the map, an equal distance from any of the other keeps. In order to break the defenders' zerg, the attackers must zerg, defeat the defenders, and capture the point. By this time, the defenders have resurrected at the center of the map, in quick running distance to one of the other captured points, where they quickly retake the point ... and the circle zerg continues.
Stockton's example change only works if there are more changes around it, but we're left in the dark for now. What exactly does "more quickly and easily capture the third" mean? He says that it will make the defending zerg have a harder time taking back one of the other bases, but does this mean the timer will go slower? Will the number of people who contribute to a cap be lowered after two bases are captured? What is to prevent the obvious reverse Tol Barad zerg, in which attackers just quick-cap two points and then move on the third, effectively negating the defenders' ability to recap quickly? It's all very nebulous at the moment, more about the words and less about the solutions. I, however, would love some facts.
Stockton's example change isn't a bad one -- attackers should be rewarded for capturing two places, especially against defenders who have time to fortify those places before the attackers make it into the area. Even with their added graveyard advantage of being able to move to any keep at a moment's notice after death, the defenders still have to be good enough players to defeat the supposedly even number of attackers.
We've been reading your feedback, watching trends across our global realms, and fighting plenty of battles in Tol Barad ourselves to get a feel for what's working and what isn't, and we're committed to making Tol Barad a fun and engaging zone. We want owning the zone to be meaningful throughout the lifespan of the expansion -- and while the attackers may always face somewhat of an uphill battle, the defenders should feel much more pressure not to lose than they do currently.
I don't know if this is the case at all. There are two types of players at this point -- people who care about Tol Barad and people who don't. Let's examine both.
The person who cares about Tol Barad wants to fight in the battle and win so that she and her friends have access to all the cool Tol Barad goodies, including Argaloth and the dailies. Fine. This person needs to be accompanied by like-minded individuals who feel the same way, and she usually is. On attacking, she is out in front of the general chat, calling out bases and fighting the good fight against difficult odds. She is upset when her team loses Tol Barad because rewards have been lost.
The person who doesn't care about Tol Barad probably also doesn't care about dailies or the gear associated with his faction's respective reputation level. This person couldn't give a damn who holds Tol Barad because, for the most part, controlling or not controlling Tol Barad gives him little benefit. Holding Tol Barad is only beneficial if the rewards that are present are meaningful to you; for instance, Wintergrasp gave us shards outside of Wintergrasp.
The win trading has ceased on most realms since the hotfix decreased the amount of honor gained on a successful attack. The defenders of Tol Barad still fight vigorously against the attackers on my server, and the battle is waged by two full groups of ...
Wait a minute ...
This is about people queuing, isn't it? The whole time! This isn't about whether or not people want to win or lose, or how to make keeping Tol Barad an exciting and beneficial goal. Everything in this post is about getting people to play Tol Barad. If that's the case, then why are we talking about balance changes to the win conditions, when really we should be talking about the types of rewards that could be earned during the battle to ensure people come to bat for their respective sides?
That's a completely different discussion! Give us honor and reputation for each honorable kill. Give us honor and reputation for capturing and defending points. Give us cool vehicles that do cool things like fire rockets and boulders and laser guns and not Ronco Set It and Forget It (TM) Do-it Themselves siege engines. Give us shooty towers and jet packs and I think you understand what I'm talking about.
If the problem is that the defense won't queue up because they don't see any reason to play the game, make them want to play the game. Right now, Tol Barad is a ton of honor if you just run around and get a bunch of kills. Before the great honorclypse of 2011, it was the fastest way that I would get some pretty decent amounts of honor.

Quick aside: Whoever came up with the Tol Barad Searchlight needs to send me an email so we can be best friends. I love you.
The last point I wanted to address was that Blizzard wants Tol Barad to be relevant throughout the life of Cataclysm. The best way to do that and, in turn, make people want to fight for Tol Barad, is to add a special vendor in Baradin Hold that sells some extra stuff with commendations that players can purchase. New trinkets, fun stuff like the searchlight, new pets and mounts, and cool banners and such should be available only to the faction that holds Tol Barad. Combined with the fact that you gain more commendations by winning and have a cool place to spend them ... People would be all over Tol Barad. What about making new PvP heirlooms cost Tol Barad commendations, and put them on a vendor for the controlling faction?
Just the same, the attacking faction should feel motivated to take Tol Barad back, but they shouldn't feel that the odds are insurmountable. So keep fighting the good fight, and we'll continue watching the battlefield and listening to your feedback.
These are words that I agree with. I want taking Tol Barad to be a challenge, not an impossibility. Right now, we're bordering on the line between impossible and harder than it should be. Tol Barad needs objective fixes, mechanic fixes, and most of all, incentive fixes. Stockton knows this -- he just told us. The problem with his response, however, is that it doesn't tell us more than the problem is on people's minds and that solutions are coming soon. I'm all for that, but I'm still looking for specifics. We've got a long way to go for Tol Barad's salvation, but I'm glad that smart people like Stockton are on the case and truly have Tol Barad's best interest in mind.
Carry on, soldiers, and may no man die at The Slagworks in vain.






Reader Comments (Page 1 of 5)
wutsconflag Jan 10th 2011 9:19PM
Right now, the attackers have to control all three points. Defenders only need to take one back. That's the crux of the problem.
Outdatedkero Jan 10th 2011 11:41PM
Agreed. THe whole blame people that are not quing is just not correct. Some low servers maybe, I know the losing attacking fraction on my server have people waiting to get in to the battle even at dead hours. I personally Have been sitting waiting for multiple battles to attack and never get a chance to. The defenders circle zerg is the problem imo.
Im personally in favor of a buff for defenders actually defending a base(and reset it on respawn) so they are less likely to zerg around the roads and fights actually happen not this 5v20 counter zerg.
Big Shoe Jan 11th 2011 6:35AM
Agreed. This is a terible machanic, and fixing it is as simple as imposing a 2/3 control point win condition for the battle. Having all the defenders win effortlessly by stacking in one building and turtling it makes the whole Tol Barad battle pointless.
relmatos Jan 11th 2011 8:22AM
my solution to this as has been suggested before is changing so that whoever is attacking needs to only cap 2 of the towers(of course that'd mean that it'd take longer to cap a tower.
Other solutions:
- Add something similar to tenacity stacking every time a faction loses the fight.
- Change it so that instead of having to cap the 3 towers, Each tower provides X points and Assault has to accumulate Y points.
AGx07162 Jan 11th 2011 5:01PM
I think Tol Barad will help with players who just dont think. I see and know plenty who care in unholy degrees about getting gear. If Tol Barad has something to offer, these people care but at the same time some of them are just 'Zerg' minded. Forget about capturing this or defending that, the only thing they care about is finding that stray character and killing him. I'm glad Blizz is enforcing something that requires players to work together and form strategies in order to win instead of just grouping up and 'zerging' mindlessly and by that I mean, killing all the enemy players but ignoring the fact that you should be capturing/defending the base you just ran through and moving on. If anyone has had a stupid loss in AV then you know what I'm talking about.
Argumentativeweasel Jan 10th 2011 9:29PM
Amen to that Brotha. Even as a PvPer, I find no reason to do TB. It's not even fun, and I have the commendation gear. I'd much rather play a WSG or TP.
Sorcha Jan 11th 2011 4:19AM
It's odd to me that you should say this because I am having an awesome time in Tol Barad. On my server it's very much a grudge match. During WoTLK the Horde was horribly outnumbered (4 to 1) in WG and so never had it. Now we're equally matched, we win 90% of the time whether we attack or defend, because we're organised, focussed and because we'll fight tooth and claw so that the Alliance gets its payback. There was no win-trading, either. We love knowing that they're biting their keyboards in half too much. And having the Horde pvpers come together like that is a far better feeling, to me, than yet another WSG!
Baba Jan 11th 2011 4:41AM
I'm a PvPer, and I WANT to do Tol Barad. However, I queue and queue and queue and queue and I never get in.
So now, instead of setting a timer for each Tol Barad, I just queue if I happen to be online at the time, I've become so apathetic about it because there's a 1 in 20 chance that I'll actually get to fight.
Plus the rewards from Commendations are crap, it's stuff that I could get now or in a year, it has no relevance to me.
Elmouth Jan 11th 2011 1:00PM
Playing Mix and Match with the world pvp queue is one of the fumbest things blizz did, so what if your server is outnumbered 4 to 1? Should have looked at wow census before you rolled there. End of story.
You're not winning because you're "organised and focused" you're winning because other people from other realms are fighting it for you.
It lost its world-pvp feel and is nothing more than another BG now.
Lemons Jan 10th 2011 9:30PM
A game that is intentionally imbalanced? that sounds like a horrible idea. I guess I'll have to get used to the fact that horde are going to control Tol Barad 24/7.
SlimPickens42 Jan 10th 2011 9:31PM
The biggest problem I have with Tol Barad is the 1-1 ratio. I understand the reason for it, but queuing every couple hours and not getting in is extremely frustrating. If you want a 1-1 ratio make it instanced with more than 1 battle at a time. Still run the battle every couple hours, but at the end put up a score board with the total wins for horde and total for alliance. Whoever wins more owns the zone.
Simpsons Rule Jan 10th 2011 11:14PM
But that would only work if your Tol Barad raid is consistently "capped," which has nothing to do with the 1:1 horde:alliance ratio. Let's assume on your server there are far more horde participants interested than alliance participants. That would mean 100 horde players queue for a battle but only 20 alliance players queue. Eighty of those horde players willing to participate will be unable to do so because there are not enough alliance players. Creating multiple simultaneous battles wouldn't fix this problem because no matter how many battles are going on, you'd need to add more alliance players to the mix to get those horde players in.
The only thing simultaneous battles would fix is you are reaching a cap on the amount of total Tol Barad participants (I'm not aware of a cap like that, but I'm not saying it doesn't exist). I personally think the 1:1 ratio is a great idea.
N-train Jan 10th 2011 11:32PM
The simple fact exists you can't have your cake and eat it too, it simply doesn't work both ways.
Let's take off the rose-coloured glasses for a second and remember WG was a frustrating waste of time if it wasn't roughly balanced. Tenacity was a good try, but being more than 10 people down usually meant a loss, and for servers that weren't balanced, it meant that a large chunk of people were frequently left out of content.
Yeah 1 to 1 grouping sucks a lot of the time, but at least battles are won due to competing skill and strategy, not which faction happens to have more people on at a time.
WG sucked because you needed to control it to access its vendors, and large losing streaks left factions with 200 WG marks and no chance to use them. TB avoided this, but it also takes away a lot of the motivation to fight and compete. There are flaws with each system.
Deathgodryuk Jan 11th 2011 12:49AM
The 1-1 ratio was put into place specifically so that people in your position would understand that there is an advantage to being on the smaller faction of a server and consider transferring or re-rolling. The whole purpose is an attempt to balance out the factions on each server by creating a benefit to playing on the smaller faction.... oh and making world pvp a viable option for those on the smaller faction rather than a guaranteed loss every time.
Harvoc Jan 10th 2011 9:31PM
Your last line, "Carry on, soldiers, and may no man die at The Slagworks in vain", really struck a chord with me. It embodies the main reason that I PvP, the feeling that I get when my whole team charges into battle, and how it's heartbreaking when we make one last vain attempt to win and lose. The rewards are just extra for me. Sorry for going off on a tangent, but I really felt like I needed to share it.
ahsanali Jan 10th 2011 9:33PM
Excellent post, I agree that more incentives for participating would make the battles more epic.
What is also amusing to me is how the 1:1 queuing system has made the smaller faction on realms much stronger. On my realm Aeroe Peak-US the horde is outnumbered 5:1. But this means all our pvp aficionados get to play while the top players from alliance can't get in. So we win a LOT more. It is payback for the WG tenacity days!
I hope this makes people xfer to horde. More incentives for participating would help too! A more balanced realm is a dream for us hordes here!
Hob Jan 10th 2011 9:35PM
"Give us cool vehicles that do cool things like fire rockets and boulders and laser guns and not Ronco Set It and Forget It (TM) Do-it Themselves siege engines."
^^ So much this.
For me, Wintergrasp stayed fun for the entire expansion - racing to get honorable kills so you could build your vehicles, taking down other vehicles, smashing walls and towers, crashing into other players and mowing them down with flamethrowers... good times.
Sean Jan 11th 2011 3:47AM
Tol Barad has succeeded beyond expectation in one simple thing: Making me miss Wintergrasp. Tol Barad is a disaster for all the reasons listed in this article. Winning is near impossible, the rewards are awful (now that the honor for winning was reduced), and I don't need control of TB to spend my commendations. Aside from not getting to do some extra dailies (which are a pain to do anyway) or fight Argaloth, there's no reason for either side to go.
Sorcha Jan 11th 2011 4:45AM
Agreed that the siege engines are stupid, you should have to remain in control of them to use them. But please don't add more vehicles and rockets and blah and blah to Tol Barad. Just let it be about who is better at the art of using the skills given to their class to counter a player of another class, not gimmicks.
sprout_daddy Jan 10th 2011 9:37PM
I like all these ideas. I think coming up with the manufactured world pvp that WG and TB were designed to encourage is likely a hard task. There's a reason it's never taken off in so many world PvP zones already in game. But I like TB in comparison to WG - balance issues seem easier to fix for me that zone-wide issues like the ones I felt we faced with WG in its debut.
I'd like Blizzard to consider two other things. First, make these fixes sooner, rather than later - one of the issues with WG is that by the time many of the problems were "fixed" (not really fixed, just changed), WG was largely irrelevant for the reasons Matt stated. Tinker if you have to, but do it now - don't wait for the perfect fix.
Second, I think the issue of getting in TB is still an issue - particularly on higher-population servers. Given the two-island design of TB, it seems like it wouldn't be that hard to instance it - you could receive a buff if you won that would allow you to re-enter and complete dailies. This way, everyone who wanted to play could try, and balance could still be achieved.