The Art of War(craft): Eye of the Storm rated battleground strategy

Every week, WoW Insider brings you The Art of War(craft), covering battlegrounds and world PvP, and Blood Sport, with the inside line for arena enthusiasts. C. Christian Moore is filling in for Battlemaster Zach Yonzon this week, and does he have a treat for you -- rated battleground strategy!
Rated battlegrounds are a very fun subject to theorycraft strategies for; they're new and interesting. I recorded a rated Eye of the Storm that I originally intended to go with this article, but instead, I'll be bringing you the written strategy now and video later, complete with Ventrilo recording!
If you need a refresher on Eye of the Storm or you're new to battlegrounds in general, Zach wrote a great Eye of the Storm primer.
I've only played Eye of the Storm three times now in rated battlegrounds, although I've been a part of many different strategies from premades in The Burning Crusade and Wrath of the Lich King. As far as I know, there are
2v2 strategy
A strategy I expect to be employed commonly is what I'll call a 2v2 strategy. The basic idea is that it's best for your team to hold two bases and win via capping the flag multiple times. The substrategies are also very similar.
2v2 Dedicated Defense This strategy is named Dedicated Defense because you assign an equal number of your team to one objective and the same equal number of your team to the other objective. You evenly split your team between both points and have a third group to take the flag and return it to one of your capped bases. Once you gain control of your two points, no one on your team ever attacks the enemy bases.
I believe this to be the worst strategy in Eye of the Storm (other than some kind of strategy that will never work, like 1v3 with a focus on flag capping or something equally absurd).

This strategy is much better than the Dedicated Defense strategy. If you are not attacking the enemy bases, they have little reason to keep more than one defender at the base. You'll end up with a very large battle over the flag that you weren't prepared for. By sending one or two members of your defending bases to the opposing bases, you keep multiple people there. You're essentially trading one member (or two) for three or four members of the opposing side. It's a false attack; you're winning because you sacrificed one person's position for far better overall position.

3v1 strategies are far better than 2v2 strategies. Three bases are much better than one base and the flag; if you can accomplish this, the upside is enormous. I expect nearly all high-rated rated battleground groups to employ a 3v1 strategy. There are many differences in 3v1 strategy, although I believe all 3v1 strategies can be put into four subcategories.
3v1 Dedicated Defense, No Flag This strategy involves controlling three bases and putting the majority of your forces at two points -- the two points closest to where the enemy team is spawning. If the opposing team attacks your weak point, they must do it by crossing your strong points or the center (flag). If they try to cross your strong points, you can simply intercept them. You can also reliably send reinforcements from both strong points to the weak point if they try to go through the flag (the distance they have to travel is longer than the distance your team has to travel).
3v1 Dedicated Defense, Flag Cap This is the same strategy as above, but with a focus on flag capping once a 3v1 advantage is obtained. I believe this strategy to be strictly inferior to the previous strategy. Spreading your team even thinner than it already is will not win you games. It will, however, make all three of your points easier to take. It's best to forfeit the immediate advantage of a large amount of points from the flag than it is to weaken the rest of your points. The only time capping a flag is correct in this scenario is if the opposing team has absolutely no presence on the flag -- it would be foolish to not go after the flag at that point.

You then use your forces on the other side of the map to counterattack the base they just left from (the only base they still control) and trade bases with them. Sure, you gave up your base they just attacked, but you just gained the base they left from. You're out-zerging the zerg.
This almost always works because the opposing team in a losing 3v1 situation will almost always have at least one person at the flag. This gives you a one-person advantage (or more) and allows you to easily perform this strategy. If they don't have anyone at flag, they're most likely using the same strategy you are and they're also most likely losing (as you are currently winning using the exact same strategy they are, there is no reason to change).
A quick example of 3v1 Rotating You control Mage Tower, Draenei Ruins, and Fel Reaver Ruins. Your opponents control Blood Elf Tower. You have seven people at Draenei Ruins and seven people at Fel Reaver Ruins. You have a single defender at Mage Tower.
Your opponents decide to attack Draenei Ruins and Fel Reaver Ruins with fewer than seven people at each point. You will most likely win, because you have the advantage of defender (that is, a nearby graveyard) and an equal amount of people at each point.
Your opponents decide to attack Draenei Ruins with 10 people. Your team announces the enemy attack location and number of people attacking. All seven of your defenders at Fel Reaver Ruins move to Blood Elf Tower with the intent on capping it. The single defender at Mage Tower moves to Fel Reaver Ruins. A single person from Draenei Ruins moves to Mage Tower.
The battle now looks like 10v6 at Draenei Ruins and 7v5 (or 4, they might have one person getting the flag) at Blood Elf Tower. You will most likely trade Draenei Ruins for Blood Elf Tower. Everyone who died at Draenei Ruins will spawn at Mage Tower.
You're now back to square one -- you control three bases, the opposing team controls one; you are strong in two points and weak in one (with the correct formation). Nothing has changed.
If, instead of attacking a close point, the enemy decides to attack your weak point (in this case, originally Mage Tower) with lots of people, you can defend from both sides while simultaneously attacking and can actually get a four-cap.

It's worth mentioning you can also add a single false attacker to the mix in a 3v1 strategy. A false attacker can be extremely effective against overprotective opponents.
4v0 strategy
4v0 Is an early victory / early rush strategy wherein you leave zero to one person at your initial bases and quickly try to capture the enemy team's bases. The goal is to never have the enemy bases turn their color -- you will then have them spawn at their starting area and farm them for free honor with a quick win to boot!
Believe it or not, I actually highly recommend this strategy if you have a coordinated and skilled group. The strategy does spread your bases thin but puts enormous pressure on the enemy team early. This strategy can actually counter a 3v1 strategy by achieving a 3v1 on the opposing team and just using a 3v1 rotating strategy.
That being said, the strategy is very hard to pull off if your team is not coordinated. The enemy will assuredly attack a point that you control (unless they are playing a 2v2 strategy, which is absolutely perfect for you), so you will need to coordinate exactly the right number of defenders very quickly. In addition to calculating the exact number, you need to calculate which classes are best for defeating particular incoming attackers.
Filed under: PvP, The Art of War(craft) (PvP)






Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Harvoc Jan 16th 2011 4:10PM
Wait didn't you just list seven ways to play? Two for 2v2, four for 3v1, and one for 4v0. Or am I missing something?
Leorad Jan 16th 2011 5:12PM
only 3 for 3v1. Dedicated defense, flag cap, and rotating.
C.Christian.Moore Jan 16th 2011 5:27PM
Harvoc,
Good catch. It should be seven, I'll edit this soon.
Zaros Jan 16th 2011 4:26PM
We had a guild match here a couple days back. We rushed the enemy side and took both of their towers then retreated a bit and sent back a couple people to get our towers, then with all 4 towers on our side, we rushed their spawn location and engaged in a massive battle of every person in the BG crammed into one spot. I think the main reason we won is because we outlagged them. Gg tho.
Pinochet Jan 16th 2011 8:18PM
Even when your opponents manage to break out of a 4-cap, your point lead by the time they recover is usually big enough that the game is pretty hard to lose.
Quez Jan 16th 2011 4:38PM
Everyone who continues to lose constantly in EOTS needs to read this and start using their brains. Every match, I start by saying, "3 bases > 1 base and flags."
If you hold 3 bases the whole game, THEY CANNOT WIN BY CAPPING FLAGS AND HOLDING 1 BASE. Unless they somehow cap 20-30 flags non-stop.
This might be the easiest BG to win, but it NEVER fails, 4-5 brainless idiots ALWAYS rush the flag at the beginning, and the opponent ends up getting 3 bases easily.
The flag is only a distraction to the real objective: hold as many bases as possible. I know this is a guide for Rated BG's but, it never ceases to amaze me how many people get flag tunnel-vision, and think the main purpose of this BG is to flag cap.
Bases win over the flag. Simple.
jealouspirate Jan 16th 2011 5:22PM
It's funny, because I just came to read WoWInsider to cool off after a horrible EotS. We had no bases at all, but everyone rushed flag. When we couldn't cap the flag people just said "Let them win, faster honor" and trolled /bg until we were 4-capped.
Ugh.
Seriously, your comment is all people ever need to know about EotS. How people still don't understand this is beyond me.
CiM Jan 16th 2011 5:54PM
Except random battlegrounds aren't premades and you can't guarantee any level of communication, individual player skill or ability to function as a team, so the 3v1 strategy is risky because it tends to result in a PUG spreading itself too thin. In a PUG it's somewhat safer to focus your team at two bases, deny the enemy the flag, and then go for targets of opportunity with whatever good players are present. That could be the flag or it could be other bases.
It's not clever, but it is robust - it doesn't put much pressure on your PUG to perform, and it allows a handful of good players to control the flow of the BG by capping the flag/assaulting a weak base while the enemy zergs your PUG defenders/etc.
This is why in PUG EotS I almost always go midfield. If the enemy sends forces to mid, I can prevent them getting the flag for upwards of a minute into the match, tying up their guys in the middle while our numerically superior forces have a better chance at the bases. If the enemy doesn't go mid, I get free control of the flag and am in a position to spot for targets of opportunity. I've seen this strategy work time and time again in PUGs; I've seen 3v1 successfully pulled off a mere handful of times - and each time was with a friendly team that dominated the enemy on every level anyway - and lead to many many failures as it degenerates into a 2v2 with the enemy controlling the flag because our team is too busy trying to cap another tower against evenly matched forces.
gamerunknown Jan 17th 2011 2:37AM
I've been in a match where we didn't cap a single flag (or even successfully harass their flag carriers much) but successfully defended three bases for the duration. It was longer than it could have been, but we won. That match was the perfect demonstration of the philosophy underlying three bases and I likewise explain the concept to everyone at the start of the match.
Also, I always say to go to DR if you're horde or FRR if you're ally. Why? Because the spawn point has a rock that reduces fall damage on one side, predisposing the players to go to that particular node (only really works for an uncoordinated PUG though). If I ask for group 2 to stick on MT and group 3 to head for FRR, I usually want group 2 to fully cap it (just in case they get wiped out/drawn off base, a sneaky rogue will have a more difficult time making it go neutral and forcing spawns further away) and group 3 to assist until its blue before heading across the bridge (so if they die on the bridge at least they don't spawn back up the rock).
Finally, I'm the guy that goes around capping 2-3 bases in AB even if we're losing by 500 and the enemy has about 100 to go. The concept of "just let them win" doesn't get through to me.
Leorad Jan 16th 2011 5:11PM
Thank you, thank you, thank you for this guide. I intend to be the organizer of my guild's PvP activities, which will focus solely on rated BG. This is exactly the kind of guide we need to help get that started on the right foot.
Umm, more please.
Bumblebee Jan 16th 2011 5:14PM
Now, imagine a premade group utilizing these strategies in normal EotS... talk about gaining honor fast.
Hangk Jan 16th 2011 5:57PM
The "False Attacking" thing is an important component of any successful "Take-X-and-hold" strategy in any battleground. Standing around your bases gives your opponents all the time they need to co-ordinate a crushing attack on one of your assets. Even if your strategy is to hold, you need to keep pressure on the opposing force to keep them in a reactive state and to keep them from launching their own plans.
Ragen Jan 16th 2011 11:59PM
Thank you for listing these here. It's a wonderful start to building counter-tactics =P.
I'd also like to make a suggestion to keep in mind. The flag can be ignored, but who here wants to really leave your opponent an option? It stands to reason that in a game of equal opponents; any little bit of oomph you gain can mean the difference between a win and a loss.
If you do not feel you can keep control of the middle, a fine way to deny your opponents is to keep the flag handy (as in grab it and do not cap it). This keeps the game firmly in your hand, and works as wonderful bait if your efficient in moving the flag from one place to another.
Yes, this will also increase the enemies you fight by removing the action from the middle, but in turn speeds up the game in your favor. Like in Magic: The Gathering, denying a person even one land puts you in a favorable position.
Tragus Jan 17th 2011 1:01AM
Its great to see articles (and positive comments) on BG strategies. People seem to lose the war game mentality when playing in these environments. I am looking forward to finding a guild (or group) of players that want to take the time to formulate and execute good team play. I know the two are not akin, but I would expect a player not to do in a BG what you would do in a raid. Running around thinking you are going to save the day without help or as apart of the scheme (false attacks withstanding, as they are part of a strat) is how loses pile up in bgs. Even when I am in a lost bg (sometimes you are just out gunned or out maneuvered) I am glad to see teams sticking with a strategy mentality and not tossing out the ubiquitous "fail" or "noob", I think it builds better BG PVPers in the long run. Look forward to more articles on this topic, thanks C!
Capn K Jan 17th 2011 2:18AM
Great article. I really liked seeing all the different strats with good analysis on each.
I'd also like to see a counter-strat article, like what to do when you come up against one of these strats, or maybe just some more reactive strategy that can be used once the game is underway.
dengarsw Jan 17th 2011 12:49PM
I'm surprised there aren't more comments on here, especially about the 4-cap strat (I've only been in one group that knew about this one, which is a fairly risky strat with a high pay off if you have the skill). I never thought it'd be posted myself, but here it is =) Hopefully the article spreads a bit and some puggers will better understand the BG now (note to the flag bashers: even the author notes that, if the flag is clear and you have an advantage, it's foolish to leave it just sitting there).
intimacy Jan 19th 2011 8:37PM
What is the battleground map addon you are using?
warriorpanda Jan 19th 2011 10:55PM
The analysis here is solid, but it's all about getting ahead early. I'd really like to see an article that addresses one of the biggest weaknesses in RBG strategies: how to play when you're behind.
I've read and participated in dozens of discussions on the best way to 3-cap AB or 2-cap Gilneas, but there's shockingly little talk on how to recover when the enemy's done that to you. RBG crews—mine and my opponents' alike—often disorganize and struggle when things don't go their way in the first 3-4 minutes. There's an implicit assumption that the game's outcome is decided by the time all nodes are controlled.
Defending a lead is pretty easy. I think the real challenge of RBG's is in how you come back from a losing position.
Good_Idea Jan 27th 2011 7:12PM
I agree with warriorpanda, the hard part is countering and coming back from a loss in the first few minutes. It happens to the best teams.
Good_Idea Jan 27th 2011 7:16PM
Eye of the Storm is all about resource allocation... and winning small scale fights (or holding out for reinforcements) at your location. It's also about knowing where to correctly counterattack the enemy after a strong defense.
The problem with the 3v1 is getting it in the first place. The author never mentioned how to do this. Games are usually 2v2 (with flag) because each team moves to reinforce their positions quickly, making a 3v1 game impossible. So the flag starts to matter a lot, because you're at a stalemate.
To get 3v1, does the author propose to take 10 attackers against their 5? Again, a good team doesn't have 5 guys in the middle and they'll reinforce with a total of 10 guys of their own. 10v10 with you attacking, unless you are very good and they are very bad, you will lose. Again, it's about positioning your forces properly.
So how does the author propose getting a 3 cap when they have 5 at each base, 4 rovers, and 1 in the middle?