Patch 3.2 bringing Strand of the Ancients coin toss
by Mike Schramm 
Jun 18th 2009 at 4:30PM
We mentioned this issue a while back -- since it was introduced to the game, Strand of the Ancients has started Alliance on attack first, and that's caused problems. Due to the way the map is set up (a back-and-forth attack and defend map), the team that starts attacking has an advantage in terms of farming honor -- they only have to play until the other team loses rather than having to keep up a defense the whole time. That means shorter battlegrounds for the Alliance, which means more honor overall for them.The problem was that Blizzard couldn't just flip a switch to randomize the battleground's spawn points: they were hard-coded into the moving ships that players appear on, so it took much more coding to use a coin-flip start. However Zarhym now confirms that the coin flip is coming to SotA. And though he didn't say when in the original post, the Patch 3.2 notes tell us that it's coming in that patch.
Hopefully Blizzard will have learned their lesson for the Isle of Conquest -- although since it's closer to Alterac Valley from what we've heard, we probably won't have that asymmetrical issue, and both sides will be able to start with just as many advantages and disadvantages as the other.
Patch 3.2 will bring about a new 5, 10, and 25 man instance to WoW, and usher in a new 40-man battleground called the Isle of Conquest. WoW.com will have you covered every step of the way, from extensive PTR coverage through the official live release. Check out WoW.com's Guide to Patch 3.2 for all the latest!Filed under: Horde, Alliance, Analysis / Opinion, Blizzard, Battlegrounds
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
yuggy Jun 18th 2009 4:38PM
So....will there literally be a "coin toss"? Like in football (american)?
Rohannor Jun 18th 2009 6:51PM
Yeah, the Horde and Alliance captains will come out, shake hands and some fourth-rate celebrity like Hemet Nesingwary's former roommate will flip the coin.
Quark1020 Jun 18th 2009 10:11PM
But not before we hear some no name singer or shallow celebrity sing a bastardized version of the star spangled banner.
Jafari Jun 19th 2009 2:20PM
"although since it's closer to Alterac Valley from what we've heard, we probably won't have that asymmetrical issue, and both sides will be able to start with just as many advantages and disadvantages as the other."
I almost choked on my coffee when I read that. If any battleground other than SotA needed a coin flip, it was AV.
Jeremy George Jun 18th 2009 4:45PM
Before implementing this, they should let the Horde start every time for the next six months... just to be fair :-P lol
Candina@WH Jun 18th 2009 4:55PM
'Fair'?
That word, I don't think it means what you think it means -- Blizzard
Michael Jun 18th 2009 6:50PM
I cannot express how much I agree with this point in mere words. The Alliance should have to deal with being the defender first for the exact same period of time, TO THE MINUTE, that the Horde had to endure. It drives me crazy just thinking about it, and the whole AV fiasco that has never been resolved.
Rowan Jun 18th 2009 5:10PM
Thank goodness, and its about damn time. But what was the real issue? The only problem I've noticed is that the Horde are typically still scrambling for position/people while the Alliance merrily hop into their tanks and rape us all.
The Claw Jun 18th 2009 5:40PM
About time. Much as I love Strand, it should never have gone live until this issue was sorted out.
Firestride Jun 18th 2009 5:50PM
Horde is going to OWN this now. We were holding our own (at least on Nightfall) while frequently not hitting a full group until 4 or 5 minutes into a round.
megamogx Jun 18th 2009 6:56PM
Well that should stop 100 posts from being made on the wow forums each day...
Ormus Jun 18th 2009 7:05PM
"they only have to play until the other team loses rather than having to keep up a defense the whole time. That means shorter battlegrounds for the Alliance"
I can understand how it is easier for Alliance to get the "no walls breached" achievement since they can force the horde to play the entire 10 minutes of defense, but could someone pelase explain how one side can have a "shorter battleground"?
Dart Jun 18th 2009 7:49PM
Alliance can get shorter Queue times because they always used to start first.
Picture this.
Good alliance group vs bad Gorde group. Alliance win in 4 minutes, Horde try to cap within 4 minutes. That means it's an 8 minute game.
Bad Alliance group vs good Horde group. Alliance never take the orb, therefore 10 minutes have passed by, and then a 4 minute win means a 14 minute game.
The coin flip will balance this out.
@Rowan
Yes this was an issue, anything that makes the game imbalanced for 1 side is an issue. (Probably going to get inc flames about racials) It's not like PvE penalizes you for picking a side.
Dart Jun 18th 2009 7:51PM
WTB Edit button, PLEASE.
...shorter GAME* times because...
...bad Horde group....
Gutless Jun 18th 2009 8:57PM
A winning alliance team will get a shorter game than a winning horde team because the second half's time limit is how long it took for the other team to cap (or not) the relic in the first half.
So if the alliance rinse through all gates and cap the relic in 2.5 minutes, they only have to hold the horde off for 2.5 minutes in the second half, the BG lasts 5 minutes total. For the horde to win they have to hold off as long as they can for the first half, which increases their game time and reduces their honor gain or whatever over the same time
enkafiles Jul 30th 2009 2:33AM
Major problem on my server (Ysera-EU):
Horde just afking out after the first half of the BG
if it went reasonably well for Alliance (< 5 minutes).
Coin toss will give both sides the chance to be jerks.
Balance, yes. Improvement? *shrug*