The anachronistic illogic of battlegrounds
by Matthew Rossi 
Feb 17th 2011 at 6:00PM
Why has there never been a battleground that has been about killing the other side? Just wanton, brutal mass combat between opposing forces? (The answer is probably because it would be terrible.) But when you start to think about what the fighting is even about, it gets even weirder. Yes, that post is really a clever jab at LoS and how it often doesn't work like you'd expect it to (and that's worth considering as well), but really think about some of the battlegrounds we're going to right now in a post-Cataclysm world.
WSG really comes to mind. The Horde effectively controls both sides of the gulch now, and it's never explained how Alliance players even get there anymore or why they're bothering to fight over lumber when the whole area's been deforested at this point. Arathi Basin and Alterac Valley are in similar states -- especially Alterac, which is entirely surrounded on all sides by the Forsaken except for the ruins of Alterac itself to the north, which is populated by angry ogres. How and why do Alliance forces spend any time getting to the valley? Air drop? And if so, why are they bothering to fight to hold a nasty little frozen crack in the earth surrounded on three sides by walking corpses?
Yes, disbelief should be suspended in some case, but with new BGs like Battle for Gilneas and Twin Peaks that are set in the current conflict, it seems odd to be sometimes battling the Horde in the most current of conflicts and sometimes traveling back in time five years.
When you combine strange victory conditions -- We won because we stole their flag! We won because we avoided the enemy entirely and burned down their stuff faster than they burned down our stuff! We won because we stole their flag, held onto it for a while, and sat around in these two ruined towers while a paladin kept dying solo attacking a Fel Reaver! -- with a sometimes confusing battle for things like lumber in a deforested area or a farm in the middle of a constant war zone (seriously, farmers of Arathi, I'd give it up), battlegrounds can be pretty surreal.
I think maybe at the least it's time to update the storylines of some of these places. Turn WSG into an attempt to retake ground vs. an attempt to hold onto new gains. Make Alterac Valley a rescue mission for the Alliance vs. a final victory for the Horde. Maybe take the farm out of Arathi and replace it with a Forsaken plague research center or something. With dungeons like SFK and The Deadmines having embraced the new era, I'd like to see old favorite BGs do so as well.
Also, stone walls and hills really should break LoS. Come on.
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.Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, PvP, Cataclysm
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
Rommster Feb 17th 2011 6:05PM
This just makes so much sense, I'm surprised it hasn't been done already!
Rhev Feb 18th 2011 6:46AM
It has been done already. The original version of Alterac Valley was basically one big slaughter fest. You had to rescue NPCs and kill key NPCs on the other side. You had to collect tokens from the fallen players you killed to summon a raid boss to help you win. It was, as Rossi said, "Just wanton, brutal mass combat between opposing forces."
There was one problem with it. After your second time getting into a 48 hour long slaughter fest, it was unbearable. Quite simply it wasn't fun. Even when they made changes so that the battles would only last say... 4 hours... it still wasn't fun.
So they revamped again, and now you have the watered down, boring AV that you have now.
Aggblade Feb 17th 2011 6:15PM
I'd prefer that Blizzard not mess with the old BGs too much. They may break them.
wutsconflag Feb 17th 2011 9:03PM
You mean even more than they already are? *nostalgic sigh about the joys of 10 hour Alterac Valley v1.0 games*
Rubitard Feb 18th 2011 2:31AM
Agreed. How about we just plunk Chromie and her Bronze Dragonflight cousins at every BG instance, claim you've been asked to relive a battle for reasons of temporal stability or what-have-you, and regardless of the battle's outcome, that's what was supposed to have happened. Thank you for your victory/sacrifice in the name of maintaining the timeline! That way, you'd have no reason to risk breaking that which in and of itself isn't broken, save for the world having passed it all by.
Vogie Feb 19th 2011 9:55AM
I disagree. I think they should take the mouse-pellet scenario to the next level. I would actually renew my subscription if they started to make things a bit more random in the battleground area.
Warsong, with an small chance of a volcano erupting, lava coming out of the ground and making things impassable at random times.
I've always been a fan of a "Battle for Loch Modan" pre-cataclysm, where each BG there was a possibility the dam would break, and suddenly the pvp would become underwater PVP - the Vash'jir changes were good, but DW already destroyed it.
Eye of the Storm where one of the 4 staging areas could fall off.
Alterac Valley where the mountain in the middle could be toppled towards one base or another as an optional objective, changing the landscape
I'd love to see a slaughter-fest, but add PVE elements. Each player has an elite NPC alongside them, making the 40v40 effectively an 80v80. Or There's a third party boss-like entity randomly throwing out void zones or changing elements. Battle for the Obsidian Sanctum anyone?
Lucidique Feb 17th 2011 6:13PM
Good points.
But then, I really like the battlegrounds as they are. I do get somewhat nostalgic when I PVP from time to time, putting one of those old PVP vids from Vanilla and watching those massive 1.2k crits - hory shet, eh!
Vynlar Feb 17th 2011 6:15PM
AGREE 100%. I want some pvp love for my lowbie alts and some fresh expierences in pvp with my main. Either a new BG/arena or revamping the old BG's to be more lore based.
Bloodfurnace Dalvengyr Feb 19th 2011 8:50AM
I'd agree to make the game play out with the lore, but we already got two new BG's plus Tol Barad.
Aenerion Feb 17th 2011 6:18PM
"(I mean, if you want to contemplate how grabbing a flag and taking it somewhere equates to an epic military triumph, go ahead)"
you forgot to link that to
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEx5G-GOS1k
CDave Feb 17th 2011 11:31PM
I was more so thinking of the Red vs Blue episode
StClair Feb 18th 2011 2:45PM
"Everyone, everyone, look unto me! I possess the blue flag!"
"It's more beautiful than I ever imagined!"
"I have seen the top of the mountain, and you will worship me as though I were a god! ... I regret nothing! I have lived as few men dare to dream!"
Teaspoon Feb 18th 2011 6:54PM
Fargo of Gamespy once claimed that America won the Cold War by placing their flag where the Commies couldn't get it: the MOON!
Mindaika Feb 17th 2011 6:23PM
I like the idea of a "kill 'em all" BG: Basically just have Wintergrasp queue the same way, but instead of "take the castle/towers" it's "whoever gets to 500 kills first."
cloudhopper013 Feb 17th 2011 6:40PM
500 kills would come way too fast. Remember, whenever somebody gets killed in Alterac Valley, unless I'm mistaken, their side's resources goes down by 1. If you look at how fast resources deplete in Alterac inbetween building captures and burning shit, even WITH the "resource-boosting" buildings under control, you'd see that you'd need something more like 750 or even 1000 kills. But then again, I'm talking about a 40v40 battleground. So perhaps 500 would be ideal for a smaller one.
Revynn Feb 17th 2011 6:54PM
New battleground coming in 4.1:
fy_Iceworld
Tomatketchup Feb 18th 2011 4:10AM
cp_wsg_v3_tf2
BigDumbFace Feb 18th 2011 9:06AM
Kill 'em All:
Each team must defend their lead guitar player while he attempts to flawlessly melt faces with a killer solo?
N-train Feb 17th 2011 6:24PM
With the advent of rated battlegrounds I'm hoping we'll see more strategic and more complex battlegrounds, something like a real (SoTA was a nice try) castle siege, or something involving NPCs.
When you're playing with a pre-made group you can spend more time discussing/planning strategy, and you can play for more difficult objectives rather than 25 random people thrown together across a battlegroup.
Perhaps a BG with resources in a more RTS/Wc3 style, where you have to divide your team and manage priorities between collecting/defending resources/workers and defending/attacking the other team, and resources can be used to improve elements of your force or base.
Or where you get a small group of NPCs to command, where you could customize your makeup, gain experience, and deploy them much like a pet or minion. BGs, imo, would feel much more epic if they consisted of rank and file soldiers (like a real battle would), as opposed to both sides throwing 10-40 heroes at eachother.
Whatever the idea, I'm hoping that rated BGs will bring about more complicated BGs with some more original and newer mechanics, as opposed to just king of the hill or capture the flag.
brian Feb 17th 2011 9:14PM
What about making a BG like DoTA?
Lots of Soldiers/Grunts streaming from both bases, with a few different paths that they take. There could be defensive or offensive points players could capture, which would help their force hold or push forward. In addition, the players' presence itself would help, as the player would kill the opposing force faster than your own would. Finally, there would be a final base you'd have to kill.
Honestly, though? That sounds a hell of a lot like Alterac Valley, except with the "collect stuff to get reinforcements" aspect made baseline. Which was never much used anyway, at least in recent years.
On the other hand? The forces would have to be able to handle a single player by themselves, or maybe even a couple. Players would have to be encouraged to attack where a bulk of their force was, or at least to be discouraged to attack without backup. Too many units could make the battle too hectic or long, and not enough would make that aspect inconsequential, so balance wouldn't be very easy.