Kasi

Yeah it certainly is beatable. But you have to play better than the horde to do it. It's not a difficult problem. If there are 10-20 horde at IBGY and the tower area you can beat them, but you better bring everyone there. Like 30 (with 10 for SP defence). If horde is lazy and camps Galv too heavily, you can rush IBGY before defence regroups and then camp it. The people who died in taking it can either hopefully get rezzes or help on SP defence.

There is also the all or nothing strat of just rush to the relief hut, but if they have too many at IBGY and area they can dismount enough of you to pick you off. If you can get 15 down there though it can be a very fast win.

You can also play defensively in the middle, but be ready for a long fight of retaking SH and IW bunkers while preventing Belinda from dying to solo lock/healer combos. We've done this Belinda defence on Uther with a group of 15 or so and it can work, but many of the games we still lose one of SH or IW. I don't recommend it because it just is a long drawn out game with not a lot of honor. But it can be fun for just frustrating people. The biggest issue with playing heavy defence is that unless your people who got IBGY hold it fast and get reinforced, you are pretty much dooming your offence to get run over.

 

Talgog

I certainly noticed this when I started playing again (after the AFK sanctions were introduced). The Horde don't really make much allowance for the Alliance fighting hard anymore, largely because most Alliance won't and most that do aren't geared enough to stand much of a chance. Sure, it was unwinnable, but a group of more vicious Alliance were able to kill quite a few Horde and actually keep Balinda alive as the Horde marched north.

I got iirc 42 killing blows against seven deaths in one AV. Granted that was some good PUG healing followng me around, but a dedicated scorched-earth Horde group would never have let me get away with "BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD" cannonball play. They would have killed my healing and killed me and driven Alliance out of the FoS completely instead of letting us run around while most of them marched on DB and the rest pinballed between IB/Balinda/SH.

Unusually spirited Alliance actually managed to take Galv down in one of the AV's I played, as ten of us hung around at the door on pure Horde duty while the rest disposed of the orc. The Horde wasn't expecting that and trickled in a few at a time to a merry turkey shoot.

Mind you, these AV's were far from wins or even decent honor (unless you were killing people left and right) but the Horde wasn't nearly as methodical as they could have been in order to "perfect" the game.

-

Now this, I do not agree with. There are no holes in "optimal" Horde strategy that can be exploited by Alliance forces of similar composition. There is sub-optimal Horde play (see above) but the map allows for perfect Horde execution leading to a certain victory.

Highly organized, heavily geared Alliance offense can crush semi-organized, new 70 and underlevel Horde forces at IB or on the SH attack or both, but these are unequal forces.

Optimal Horde play:

Tunnels open.
20+ Horde go to Iceblood.
10+ Horde go to SH bunker.
Horde reach Iceblood.
Horde reach SH bunker.
Alliance reach SH graveyard.
Horde tag SH bunker - Alliance tag SF.
Horde dig in at SH bunker and unload on Alliance IB train.

At this point, the Alliance is down one bunker and forced to attack two entrenched positions. If both sides play perfectly and neither loses more territory, Horde will win due to defending in a war of attrition and the edge the destruction of SH bunker provides.

It's not enough for the Alliance to play as well as they realistically can be expected to do (no perfect knowledge or extreme individual combat performance). The Horde must screw up in order for the Allance to even break IB or retake SH bunker.

That's if the sides play as perfectly as they can in a FoS grindfest. Realistically, what happens instead is that the Alliance loses SH graveyard to either a rush or ninja during an assault on IB, the Alliance wipe, and they respawn back at Stormpike. Especially once SH bunker is down, it is very easy for a sizable Horde assault to move through the village to SH GY and tap it while the Alliance is riding down the other side of the map to Iceblood.

But that, again, is screw ups. With every character CPU-controlled and executing ideal scripts, the Horde shouldn't lose because they get an initial reinforcement edge via SH bunker and are on the right side of trench warfare.

 

Lodekim

Talgog is also exactly right, yeah alliance can win, yeah I've won since 2.3 myself, but 1) it is never a 600-0 win like horde can push on alliance, and 2) it simply requires horde to slip up somewhere, or the alliance to simply out pvp the horde and be able to push into fortified lines.

Due to this fact, the alliance have taken up forming premades and not queuing AV. It is entirely possible due to the lack of perfect execution that the alliance could learn AV and put in long long games based around losing by however many reinforcements the horde take off from SH bunker and just having every other reinforcement loss come from pvp deaths, but it is far more work to try to win AV or earn the honor than it is to get a trade pug together and queue dodge in WSG/EOTS/AB.

AV used to be the place you could go and not care what was happening and get some decent honor, it allowed the pvp grind to be somewhat less painful, because you could really do whatever you want, and both sides would end with some decent honor. I honestly preferred losing in 2.2 to winning in 2.3, because the game was generally faster for the same honor. So right now for alliance on any battlegroup where the horde has taken up the scorched earth defense strategy, AV is simply not worth doing unless you need tokens, then you're best bet is to run into the horde zerg over and over and die as quickly as possible to make the alliance lose faster.

 

Mordinm

My post was not in referance to some "optimal" horde stratgey. My post was in reference to what I see when I get on my alt and look at the map in an actual AV in BG9. The holes are there. 15 games may be a small sample size but 100% of that sample there have been huge holes at IB to start. Instead of explioting them the Alliance wipes on Galv.

The fact is that even your "optimal" strategy can be beaten fairly easily.
You send 5 people to SP to make sure it doesn't get prematurely capped
You send 10 people to hit IB
The rest of the raid lags 20 or so seconds behind the IB groups and hits the horde back field.
The IB D won't get very many of your raid headed to the back being busy with the 10 man IB group.
You've now got half your raid behind the choke point and you cap everything from Tower Point back.

Those that died ended up at SP which now can only be taken with a majority of the horde raid. If the horde does that they've turned this into a PvE race and alliance wins those. In order to clear out the horde back field of half your raid the IB D must be completely gutted and can be taken by a small alliance group and then reinforced. Alliance has all the advantages at that point and the game is yours to lose.

 

Kasi

Your strategy sadly is very easily countered. Lets say horde had 20 at IB GY and area. And 10 at SH. And 5 further back and 5 lets say afk or whatever. Then the offence because alliance didn't defend anything in the middle easily moves on from SH bunker and takes SH GY. And as long as horde stopped a few of those 20 (which they will) it is very easy for horde to move some players back and wipe out the alliance in the south because they don't have any gy. Anyone who dies is forever stuck on defence.

 

Mordinm

From Post 640 in this very thread!

 

• Suggestive

I'm not sure anyone has said the strat is unbeatable. It is, just with a level of coordination beyond most of the pugs you will run into in AV. Which is exactly what your plan requires.

 

Aadar

Well remove the base graveyards as well, turn it into more offensively orientated again, sure it will probably revert to a race a lot of the time, but a defense that slows down the attack by a few minutes could make all the difference. Anyway, are we not all just interested in ensuring both teams get honor from a game so that queues are shorter which this would do. In reality AV is so broken now that it is beyond fixing, they should simply increase the honor per hour possible in the other BGs and come up with some new 40 man BG that is more equitable.

 

Opioid

This whole "perfect strategy" is contingent on the groups being fairly well-rounded. The fact is 10 Horde is not 10 Horde is not 10 Horde, so to speak. Differences in personal skill, level of gear, knowledge of strategy (which, to be fair, over time will match a bell-curve like distribution one would assume) and also differences in class distribution and even spec (feral and resto producing radically different results in the same place at one time, which is even assuming "pro pvp" spec and not just a mishmash a PUGger threw together because they liked it more) which will not achieve a bell-curve like distribution. When it comes to the mixture of class/spec every AV is total luck-of-the-draw.

Its a cute model but the chaotic reality cannot be confused with its gross oversimplification. Even given the thought experiment of a CPU playing perfectly strategically but ending up with one group of 10 being green-geared hunters, off-spec enh sham/balance druids, and so on, it will not achieve theoretical attrition parity with a group of 2 warriors, multiple mages, and 3 holy paladins healing, even in the confines of the model, free from human interaction. It falls apart pretty quickly as any sort of explanatory tool.

Everyone can agree that having 4 alright players but one weak link in a vital class role is being sentenced to a glass ceiling of mediocrity in a 5v5 arena team. Having larger numbers somewhat alleviates that, but it still remains true for a team or 8 or 10 in Alterac. Its far more likely that people being convinced by a logical-sounding meme about 'unbeatable strategy' are gonna stop playing as hard (or at all) than it is that such a strategy is actually affecting the outcome regularly.

 

Talgog

I said this. Major differences in gear, composition and organization will more than negate terrain advantages or defensive position advantages. If you have a bunch of green gear rogues and hunters at Iceblood and large numbers of S2/S3 warriors, paladins and mages come at you, you are going to die so fast your head will spin.

With *equal* forces playing perfectly, the defending Horde should win every time and lose little if anything. AV's current model innately allows for this. This imbalance stems entirely from how the map combines with the reinforcement system.

AV has always had a stronger Horde midfield position. The little books from the AV quests even say as much. Horde stronger up front, Alliance stronger in their base. Fine and dandy, except that the massively fortified Alliance base no longer matters. The reinforcement model heavily and innately favors the midfield strength of the Horde.

The Alliance needs other advantages somewhere to make up for the map imbalance. Blizzard cannot control these. They can force people to at least look like they are fighting, but they can't make them play seriously, play well, work together, or be of the right class combination. And they obviously can't require gear to play AV when AV is/was the only way for a solo new 70 to acquire PvP gear.

What Blizzard can do is balance the basic instance so that one side doesn't have an advantage that requires the other side being significantly better in order to even do well. Not win, just do well. There is nothing the Alliance can do that mirrors the effectiveness of Horde optimum defensive strat, and nothing the Alliance can plan on doing to break Horde optimum defensive strat.

Even the most extreme Alliance action, putting 40 defenders in DB and killing every Horde that set foot on the bridge instantly does not compare to Horde defensive strat. It's likely that the Alliance will win, eventually, so long as the Horde continue throwing bodies into the meatgrinder, but the Horde will still receive more honor for what they have already destroyed and captured and few players on either side would stick around for the end of this odd multi-hour match of chewing down 600 Horde, reinforced by twin captured mines.

 

Galanna

Except "Horde optimum defensive strat" is planning by the horde.
In some BG (like, sadly, mine) Horde almost never plans (no def), and neither Alliance. Even when there is a few horde defense at IB (~10), it is often crushed by 30 Alliance, while the Alliance respawn blocks Horde attack at Alliance base or even SP. Those games ends usually from 400-200 to 500-200 for Alliance.
Rarely, if Alliance defends SH and the bunker, we even see 600-20 Alliance wins.
Only sometimes, Horde succeed in defending IB, and wins from 600-20 to 500-200

So, with the current AV map :
- If Horde plans and Alliance don't, Alliance loses
- If Alliance plans and Horde don't, Horde loses
- If neither Alliance not Horde plans, Alliance usually wins
- If both Alliance and Horde plan, Horde usually wins

Thus, in order to win, Horde needs to plan while Alliance can win without planning, and that's why (with the avent of the 2.3 patch) Horde changed its strategy in many BGs, which started the vicious loop.

So yes, the map needs to be changed, but in two way:
- Alliance should be able to win as much as Horde if both sides plan
- Horde should be able to win as much as Alliance if neither side plans

 

Pointyleaf

Well in all fairness, the reason you have 30 Alliance zerging IB gy now is because enough people have realized what's going on - that Horde can turtle there effectively, and that we need that gy. So every AV, before it starts, about 5 people say "Hey let's get IB gy first", "IB GY FIRST" and "All Offense go straight to Alliance, not Galv" until even a 2-year old would know our motto (IB GY first!). Whenever Horde gets to the point where they're doing the same thing with "Everyone stay and defend IB gy" - and they do it - Alliance will lose.

This is planning, and repeating the strategy until it becomes engrained. The difficulty for Alliance is that Horde have the easiest successful strategy, and simplicity makes a big difference in pugs.

 

Baalzaman

In Bloodlust as Horde the call at the start of AV is always the same: "15-20 on defense".

The alliance almost invariably follow the same attack pattern: "zerg IB GY".

Almost invariably the game ends up with a massive win to horde.

What I don't get is why doesn't the alliance change tactics, in the few cases where they have won, its been a case of a large alliance group zerging straight into the horde main base, holding there until the towers cap and then killing Drek'thar.

Alliance "needing" IB GY I think is a misconception, one that has been very beneficial to horde. What alliance DO need is the Frostwolf Relief hut. Hold that with a large group, destroy the towers and the game is theirs.

Sure this requires getting a bunch of randoms doing the same thing - and not getting sidetracked by the horde camped at Iceblood - but if the horde can manage this, why can't the alliance? It just seems to me that one of the bigger problems with AV on Bloodlust isn't the BG itself, but rather the alliance approach to the BG.

 

Melador

Horde don't manage this. They go straight to SP when we have everyone on offense because that's the only way for us to break through a significant block at the IB chokepoint.

Personally, I've see the "take IBGY by force" plan work more than the "straight to RH"plan. Frankly, the fewer distractions the alliance has ("ooh galv, ooh random horde on the road, ooh FWGY, ooh TP, ooh FW towers") the more likely you are to keep a force intact and not be constantly dropping dismounters. IBGY is pretty easy to charge to as a group -- though even then getting people to ride to the flag and not the chokepoint can be a challenge. Going all the way RH requires a degree of focus that I just haven't seen much.

 

Elendril

Against a reasonable defense of the IB chokepoint, "rush RH" strategies just don't work. Mages nova'ing/sheeping people as they try to run past, frost traps mass snaring, AOE fears, etc - these all break up the rush to the point that the number of people who get past are easily manageable and everyone who dies ends up back at stormpike. Against a poor defense or no defense, rushing RH is the fastest way to get honor. I've played in Bloodlust and Nightfall as alliance (and in Nightfall as horde) and the difference is huge - in Bloodlust there is always a solid defense tearing the RH rush apart at the IB choke point, while in Nightfall there's typically maybe a token force at IB and more significant defense at frostwolf and the RH itself. The difference, of course, being that the latter really aren't effective choke points, so a 20 or so strong offense can overtake the 10 or so waiting at the RH flag or ride around the FW defenders and jump over the FW camp wall. An IB choke point defense also lets you molest a force at Galv or either tower effectively, which is how you can end up with those crushing 600-0 games.

 

Ngita

Its a gamble. A hut rush that fails pretty much guarentees a big Horde win, and trust me Drek with Tower Point and Iceblood up and 10 Horde trinketing in every minute is no cake walk. As a Horde priest. Hearth, hit fear before the screen even loads and run and I will be up the ramp and out of line of sight over the lip before I even load for the Alliance.


Alliance AV strategy comes down to a few simple tenets.

Galv without IB GY almost allways fails
IB tower without IB GY almost allways fails
Tower Point without IB GY almost allways fails
Rushing frostwolf or Relief hut almost allways fails.
Losing SH Bunker (which is really easy in the first 6 mins) and not taking IB GY almost allways means a very long, low honor loss.

I am not talking about tactical but positional. If you pack 20 people into Iceblood tower and have a constant stream of reinforcements from Snowfall you can cap it. In the meantime 5 Horde ride over to undefended SH GY and Icewing Bunker and take them. Alliance got a bit of Honor, Horde are now in a much better position.

 

Lodekim

Even when defending the map, giving the comment that Alliance "can" win, at best we're seeing arguments that they can rush Drek, and just kill Drek, at best that's a 350-250 win, there is no way the alliance, given close to equal skill and gear compared to horde, can ever win the 600-0 games the horde will guaranteed get if anything goes wrong with the suggested strategies. So even with alliance having the low % win rate if they adopt this strategy (sure non 0) it's still way more effort, for significantly less honor than horde get, and alliance still aren't going to queue.

 

Scout

I disagree. If the Horde keep enough at FW to stop a hut rush, then chances are they aren't pushing north as hard as they need to in order to break through all the Alliance rezzing in DB. In my experience, a failed hut rush generally leads to all of the center towers/bunkers getting capped, followed by an extended battle with one side or the other winning on reinforcements.

 

Kasi

No a failed hut rush leads to a SP turtle defence, or alternately a DB base defence. There is a much greater chance that SH GY will be capped by the horde than IBGY by alliance. Thus the rezzers from the failed rush will rez in the north and not be able to get past IW bunker. There was no rush on the horde side, so they took SH GY. Thus anyone they lost will rez at FW or IB and recap IBT and TP before they cap. A failed rush generally leads to a crushing alliance defeat.

 

Scout

Maybe we're not talking about the same thing. Are you talking about a 10-15 man hut rush? If those guys wipe, the Galv group usually manages to hold towers for a cap, then falls apart at FW GY, while the main Horde group runs the bunkers and gets locked up at SPGY or DB. This is my experience in Reckoning BG, where the Alliance hasn't had their sprit crushed yet.

 

Kasi

Yeah I mean that sort of rush. What happens is this. If horde is actually taking the time to destroy a 15 man alliance base zerg rush, they still have 3-4 minutes to recap the middle towers. When I do the relief hut rush on whirlwind, we cap the relief hut before Galv dies, even with no defence on Galv by horde. What should happen in this case is all of the 15-20 who rushed Galv should park themselves 8-10 at the GY and 5 in each middle tower and hold them til it caps. We already have 10-15 in the south. If horde isn't rushing south to try to get us back in great we don't need the help. Hold the damn middle til it caps.

But what happens if we got wiped out? Well their base is secure and there is 15 horde down south heading north. The smart thing for alliance to do there would be to say fuck TP and hold IBT with 5 and IBGY with 15 and wait til it caps. Then the alliance who died from the zerg holds up horde in the north and we win. What happens is 3-4 people max stay at each location, usually less. The people then move south towards FWGY, get killed, not enough defence at IB area and we lose the whole offence. Depending on people whose first move in AV is to "rush Galv" is not a winning proposition.

 

Scout

I have seen your scenario happen in my battlegroup, but it seems like your Horde are a lot more organized than my Horde. In my experience, my scenario is true for ~8 out of 10 failed rushes, ballpark. Our Alliance probably wins 6 out of 10 AVs as well (also ballpark).

 

Kasi

Well like I said before our bg doesn't play much base defence thankfully. They don't play much IB defence either. It's just a pure rushfest on both sides. Which actually was a losing strat for me lately until I just decided to go straight for Relief hut every time. I'm guessing its due to the out of the way place Galv is, but it seems that if no one on each side plays defence, horde get further. Probably a lot of that due to 20+ alliance going into Galv to kill him but no one going to cap the towers til Galv is done. That 2-3 minutes there puts us fatally behind, well until I started stinkyqueing with friends and going right to the relief hut.

 

Ngita

I suspect our battlegroups play so differently that you are having difficulty picturing it.Their is no defence at FW at all. All the defence is spread between Galv and IB GY, as soon as its obvious the alliance are coming up the road past IB tower they will clump their. Say its a hut rush of 25 Alliance. 15 Horde will dismount/kill 10 or so alliance. They then chase the alliance back into their own base killing say 5 in the process. Then 15 Horde have 4 minutes to kill 10 Alliance trying to hold the GY, They rarely fail.

Objective 1 for Horde is defence.
Objective 2 is SH bunker as this gives the reinforcements lead.
Objective 3 is Sh GY, as long as they hold SH GY they will eventually get Icewing, Belinda even if it takes 20 minutes.

At this point the Alliance have a choice, they can play badly and lose in ten minutes or defend well and lose in 30 minutes but the bonus honor is unaffected, mostly they play badly.

 

Scout

Fair enough. In Reckoning, that last sentence is all Horde.


EDIT: Actually, you swap Horde and Alliance and their nodes all the way though, and you just described Reckoning.