Imo, a fix for the bridge snappers: Make a gate go down on the bridge, or something. Then make a guy in the factions camps that you talk to to queue. When you are first in line, you'll be teleported to the other side of the bridge, (if attacker) or to the center building (if defender).The thing with one faction holding the zone for too long, you might want to give a buff that increases the damage/healing/whatever of the attacking faction by like, 2% after 5 losses, and then stacking untill the losing faction takes over. When the zone is taken over by a new faction, this buff will be reset to zero. But then again, defending does not give as much honor as attacking, so people may not be bothered to defend, leaving it easier to attack. But there has to be a balance, which makes defending worth the time, and at the same time making attacking a little bit more worth the time.These are only suggestion, and brainstorming. Not sure how it would work out though. Just sayin'.
Let's all thank Blizzard for turning TB into the same crapfest as WG. We all now that it's nearly impossible for the attacking faction to win TB and now even if they do the rewards are trivial at best, but holding it is not only easy but nearly as "profitable" in terms of honor.While I understand the whole win swapping and why Blizz wants to discourage it, making the returns on attacking nearly insignificant definitely is not the answer.
Stupid "PvP'ers are better than PvE'rs" again...It makes you look stupid.
I dont think that adding to the reward amount fixes anything. What they should do is fix the mechanics of the place. Maybe instead of redesigning tol barad completely just change the conditions of a successful attack. For instance maybe your is attacking and holds Ironclad and Slagworks. They move to take Wardens Vigil and of course slagworks falls. There should be a timer that starts and gives your faction perhaps 30 sec to capture wardens vigil and become victorious. I think that would solve a lot of problems. No longer would defenders be allowed to zerg rush attacker controlled locations and successfully defend. Further more the longer a faction controls tol barad the longer time after losing a location the other faction has to capture their third location.
Also I like the really hardcore PvP Wow players who find PvE wow players stupid. I think that people lose sight of the fact that wow is built on PvE and just has a strong PvP element to it, not the other way around. So the majority of people in this game who prefer to do PvE content over PvP content are not crazy and certainly not stupid. Kthnx
I'm glad the 1800 honor is gone and *hopefully* the honour sharing along with it. I queued every Alliance attacking for 5 days and never once got in as sooo many people wanted in and the Horde, realising another way to screw us over, wouldn't queue... So *maybe* 25 people got in from Ally at any one time.However, on the flip side, when I did get in on defence, it would be a full compliment of 40 (or however many you can have). The effect of this is twice as many Horde to Ally getting 1800 honour x however many times they did it = better gear and quicker... Not only stuffing up TB but stuffing up other BG's through gear as a side effect... *sigh*Honestly, they should just close the Battleground until they fix it. Make the dailies auto cycle every 2 hours so everyone gets a shot and be done with it. As a side comment, it'd be nice if they up'd Wintergrasp Honour - at least that BG works - why not encourage people back to it?
I had this huge tl;dr-worthy epic, but Mathew McCurley has done a marvelous job of making nearly every point I was while being able to deliver it in a more pleasing fashion. I would only like to add two things.
Meh, I'm full Bloodthirsty Glad and honor capped so idc what happens to Lol Barad anyway.
Why not balance Tol Barad by having the team attacking gain a small amount of additional forces for capturing the objectives in Tol Barad. This way the offense will have a slightly better chance since they will out number making it easier to control objectives since the one side can basically zerg to one base upon respawning after death. Think of this as gaining reinforcements for the fight as you win the area back.
awsome, now instead of getting the dragon mount by next week, ill have in a couple of months -_-
i know it may not be a permanent fix, but i think adjusting the ratio of attackers to defenders would atleast balance the situation for now. as it is its a 1:1 ratio. i would suggest a 3:2 ratio of attacker to defenders. as it is well known how much more difficult it is to attack and win TB than it is to defend it and blizzard has acknowledged this, i think a ratio change like such would balance the sides. 60 attackers vs 40 defenders and the battle would still be pretty even and still even difficult with the way TB is set up.
Very simple things Blizzard should know:- If they build a mechanic into their game that can be abused then players will abuse it. It's not the players fault, it's Blizzards. They should not give incentive to do "bad" things.- Zones like WG and TB have to switch sides often. There has to be an attackers advantage, not disadvantage. This is the only possibility to ensure that both factions gain access to the rewards and raids, even on servers which are dominated by one faction. Giving a defenders advantage is just plain stupid.Easy fix for Tol Barad:Just make the siege engines that attackers get super powerful and useful for defending the keeps. That way the attacker can conquer one keep at a time and fortify it with siege engines which can hold their own for a while. Strength of the siege engines can then be fine-tuned in a few patches to give a noticable but not too strong advantage to the attackers.Problem solved.
To solve this situation may I suggest a simple idea: “A no returning base”. I mean. If the attackers take one base, the defender cannot retake it again.
Wow. I bet no one saw the win trading coming./facepalm