Talk:Alterac Valley

Arbitrary title

• Bonus Honor

Post patch 2.0 information needs to be added. I started with what i knew from my own personal experience, but its limited. Started a section under bonus rep (rough atm). This is important since with the changes to pvp system, AV becomes the most efficient way to gain honor. Is it worth extra honor to kill a bat/gryphon? So if you have any additional info about bonus honor to NPC/Objectives, please contribute. --Lengis 16:57, 11 December 2006 (EST)

Is it just me, or does anyone else think that the section on exploiting the marshals/warmasters should be removed?

--Jeian

• Wait Time: Long.

I've been working on the AV page for awhile, as I when I first played it I found it very confusing and still don't fully understand some aspects of the game. For this reason it seems a perfect candidate for a detailed Wiki. However AV has been out for months and this page needs some work.

So I am piecing together a more details explanation of every possible cause of confusion. However I am an alliance player so if anyone on Horde side can mirror what the Alliance part looks like that would be very helpful. Moreover conditions on my server make AV a very long queue and so getting all the information together is difficult.

Anyway, here's the to do list:

• All buildings and graveyards, the lieutenants and commanders guarding each one, and their tlocs.
• More one-time quest information
• The repeatable mining quest and information about how to 'capture' a mine (I dont' fully understand this myself)
• Time interval between the Captain Buffs.
• Separate pages for the Captain and General with their abilities and maybe some strategies.
• Link to the Reputation rewards.
• Pictures! Could use some color.
• Alterac Valley Mark of Honor information, faction received per turn in and for doing the multi quest.
• Exact number of turnins required for Ivus, troops upgrades etc.
• Number of possible upgrades, and what the exact effect is (+2 levels? +1 level? +elite?)
• Other stuff as it comes.

Thank you, Killswitch1968 04:32, 31 Jan 2006 (EST)

Some things I'd like to see (but I'm an AV newb--first match ever today!--so I can't do them myself):

1. Discussion of what honor can be obtained from what targets. I understand that some of the bosses give honor rewards (in addition to the listed faction rewards), but I don't know which ones or how much.

2. An "AV Newbie Guide"--basically explaining what you should expect to see and do on your first trip or two to the instance.

--Maldian 17:16, 26 Feb 2006 (EST)

New information required regarding the new way of gaining rep. Now you get 1 rep for each enemy player killed that has you on his hate list. Not completely sure how this works though.

New changes in patch 1.11 regarding the actual NPCs in AV. --Hexapuma 09:54, 19 June 2006 (EDT)

Okay, took a stab at first pass cleanup. Tried to make it a bit more understandable and useful. I think we still need:

• a Newbie Guide
• more detailed information on all the commanders
• a discussion of Mark of Honor turn-in strategy (coudl be brief)
• possibly separate pages for the Generals
• more pictures. and maps.

-- Oryx 25 July 2006

The Plural of "Turn In"

With some of the latest revisions, I think we've inadvertently raised an interesting question. A "turn in" in WoW is an item that you can give to a quest NPC (usually in quantity) that provides some sort of benefit be it reputation, buffs, other items, or combinations of such benefits. The plural of turn in is...?

I've seen a great many ways to handle the term in singular (and thus plural) including:

• Turn In(s)
• Turn-In(s)
• Turnin(s)

I did however find another way of handling it on this very page before it was changed to Turn-Ins, and that was the phrase "turns in." Since the need for the plural of such a phrase didn't exist before games like WoW, I don't believe that one necessarily exists thus granting us the opportunity to further define our language. I personally think that "turns in" is the most grammatically sound solution as it bears a resemblance to other troublesome plurals such as "passers by" and "goings on." Notice that such plurals that put the "s" on the first word rather than the second are defined by the second word being a preposition (e.g. "by, "on"). In the case of "turn in," the phrase ends with the word "in" - a preposition. Thus I feel that "turns in" ought to be correct and all instances of this phrase changed to match. What do you all think?

--Ayamy 16:25, 1 September 2006 (EDT)

AV landscape

is it true that the landscape is disadvantaged for the horde?

I have been considering this, and there does appear to be a case for 'yes'. For example, the alliance General defence includes several NPCs (vendors, stables, etc) who are easily pulled into battle by accident. However, the Horde's NPCs are not located in its Keep's courtyard. Secondly, the alliance castle's aid station is more easily defendable than the Horde's: alliance flag is immediately at their recall point, horde's is further off. Alliance have many defensive positions to hold while pushing back attacking horde who are bottlenecked over the bridge. The Horde have a tower but poor visibility of incoming alliance, and less defensive positions to take up in the horde courtyard. Probably other arguments too. -- Hammersmith 21:57, 13 September 2006 (EDT)

Oh and they have imba pallies who can march into the tower, capture the flag, and stay there undetected/unbothered by the npcs. Pzychotix 22:46, 13 September 2006 (EDT)

It is, but only slightly. Horde just don't use the terrain they've got as effectively as the Alliance uses theirs. One thing to Remember is that the FW Keep Courtyard isn't equivilient to the bridge, it's equivilient to the actual 'Aid Station' Area. The horde NPCs are much more scattered around. This has the advantage that the Alliance NPCs aid the defense of the flag nearly every battle...but the disadvantage that they are killed nearly every battle and afterwards cannot take turnins, for obvious reasons. Often, the Alliance D won't bother to start turning things in until they're ressing at Aid Station, so killing the blacksmith quickly prevents their upgrades. The horde NPCs usually survive. Another note is that the Horde Wing Commanders are RIGHT next to the area where the Alliance normally pull the warmasters too, and sometimes get pulled into the battle if they're there. This almost never happens with Alliance Wing Commanders, as they're off to the side. The horde also cede the entire Frostwolf Village nearly every battle, not fighting until up in the courtyard. Trick with this, the Village is the equivilent to the much lamented bridge. The Bridge is NOT strong because it's a choke point, though that helps. It's strong because the bunkers have a line of sight to it, and the Alliance always fight to keep the horde from getting across it. When defending the bridge, the archers in the bunkers(Especially Dun Baldar North)do almost all the damage, and the Players mostly just hold the horde in place. This IS reflected in pitiful honor per kill at that section.

Lately, the horde in Battlegroup 2 have taken to strongly overdefending. They'll often post 15-25 people at Iceblood Garrison/Graveyard, and not allow the Alliance to get to Iceblood. Sometimes they'll even take Snowfall back. Sad thing is, it's mostly working, as the Alliance have gotten locked into the 'race' tactics and refuse to alter them when they don't work. In fact if it doesn't work they blame it on not enough people being on offense 90% of the time! Sometimes it's true, but if the horde turtle up at Iceblood, it's not even close. An easy and obvious counter to horde turtling at Iceblood is to turtle back at Stonehearth. Defense doesn't work if their offense cannot advance, and eventually they'll be forced to take people off defense. People argue that it'll make the game take too long and force the horde to turtle...but that's completely wrong if they're CHOOSING to turtle. Letting the other team advance while your team is stalled is suicide. And if they're turtling, it's going to be a long game no matter how it goes.

I probably shouldn't say this, as the horde haven't figured it out yet(they've overcompensated for lack of defense by going with TOO MUCH defense, dragging the games out to unneccessary lengths)... but the optimal strategy for them is actually fairly complex, though I suspect they can pull it off. The problem they have is that IB is a dramatically stronger point that frostwolf GY is, while Stormpike is a bit stronger than Stonehearth is, and actually one of the stronger points the Alliance get(as it controls all access to Dun Baldar). Frostwolf is by comparison fairly weak. This has led, apparently, to the partly true idea that the Horde need to hold onto Iceblood, since they won't be able to hold them as well anywhere else. This is only true to a point. The trick the horde haven't picked up is that defense in AV is not to STOP the other team, it's to slow them down while your offense gets ahead. If your offense is ahead you're doing your job on D. Alliance realized this because of the Icewing Blockade, people that died there giving up on riding through and defending instead.

The best thing the horde could do, is actually fairly complex and counter-intuitive. The entire horde team...should stop at Iceblood on the Initial rush. Nobody goes for Stonehearth, not a single person. Every single one of them turtles up at Iceblood. Let the Alliance have Snowfall. Wait for snowfall to turn fully Alliance. Then, after SF has turned full blue, send a group from Iceblood to take Stonehearth, leaving the rest to hold onto Iceblood. Once Stonehearth has turned fully horde, the majority of the horde team should advance, leaving a small, delaying squad defense of about 10-15 people to slow the Alliance at Iceblood and beyond while the majority of the team crushes their way to stormpike.

Why is this? The Alliance don't really plan or coordinate, they just run in a big zerg. They know the strategy, they know about how many people should be on defense, but they don't try to organize it. It just sorta happens. They generally have a few people shouting directions in BG channel, but no specific assignments are given. And they generally leave their defense to whoever just happens to end up there. And the ones that generally end up there are the people that got into the battle late, or the ones that got killed early and ressed at SP/AS, and were trapped behind the Icewing Bottleneck. Most Alliance won't ghostrun to get past a blockade. If they get trapped they either ride through, try repeatedly to ride through, or give up and go on defense. By the same token, they don't pay any attention to who's on defense or how the defense is doing until something makes it obvious. Usually they end up with people on defense for one reason, and one reason only, and this is the same reason they figured out defense works in the first place. The horde won't let them ride through the icewing bottleneck. They drag them down every way they can, trying to farm HKs. Sheeping, conc shot, roots, any CC they can, to drag the people trying to get through down to be killed. The point where SF starts picking up resses is just a bit in front of Icewing Bunker. Behind that, they res at Stormpike. If snowfall isn't captured by the Alliance, or they can't get far enough forward to res there, most Alliance will give up trying after a few attempts and go on defense.

And that's, for the most part, the sole reason the Alliance end up with any defense to speak of. They know the strategy, they know most of them need to be on offense, most of them WANT to be on offense...so if given the chance they will go on offense. If they're able to get past the Icewing Blockade to get to the front lines, almost all of them will, leaving a VERY light defense. This strategy I outlined would, because of the fact that they won't generally stay on D unless forced to, cause the vast majority of them to be forward, hitting Iceblood. They'll mostly res at Stonehearth, but once Snowfall is capped, if Stonehearth falls, the Alliance players will res at snowfall instead of stonehearth. And between their mindset and the standard doctrine, they likely won't defend SH at all. And since nearly all of them will be forward, ressing at SF, your march to SP will most likely be relatively unimpeded. In a situation where practically the entire Alliance team is forward, they generally don't notice or do anything about their lack of defense unless someone calls it to their attention. It often takes Stormpike or the bunkers being tapped before they realize they've got a problem, and even if someone warns them it often takes multiple fast horde taps before some of them start recalling.

Less complex, more conventional strategies work in this same way also, if the horde can 'trick' the Alliance into going full forward. One alternate for this is to either let them through the Icewing Chokepoint, or at the very least to make sure you kill them far enough back that they res at SF. I've seen the Alliance defense collapse on occasion because they pushed far enough forward they started ressing at SF, and then, thankful to be past the blockade, all went on O, leaving no D.

This Novel written by: -Graptor 02:25, 15 October 2006 (EDT)

Unforunately, Graptor, I believe that most of your "novel" is completely invalidated by your assumption that all Alliance are the same and all Horde are the same. If you're going to discuss the balance of the terrain, please do so from an objective point of view. Just because your experience is one thing doesn't mean that it's the same across the board. You need to discuss terrain balance purely from the standpoint of what Alliance and Horde can and cannot do, not what they will or will not do. Remember, Alliance or Horde, every one of those green or red lettered people is a real player like you, and many players play both sides. You can't make generalizations based on faction or by battlegroup. Another man's experience may be different. --Ayamy 16:34, 25 November 2006 (EST)

Look, it is true that the terrian has something to do with the Alliance's constant victories. For example, hills and bridges block the Horde's offensive, they provide the chance for Alliance to wiped them all out with AoEs or gives them a chance to pick off individual Horde since Horde are forced to split to 'fit' through roads; while Alliance has nice open space on Horde side. But dont expect Blizzard to do anything about it, its just too difficult for them to completely redesign AV. That will cause problems everywhere. The best the Horde can do is adjust to the stratgies and terrian and adapt and lately they have been doing that, which are causing them to now win more often. And I believe Blizzard fixed the bug with the NPCs not aggroing to Alliance. --Spectrezh 12:13, 18 December 2006 (EST)

Seeing as this is a popular issue, it seems strange that there isnt a seperate article(that I know of anyway) in WoWWiki. The official forums are just the same raging arguments back and forward, and are virtually devoid of any serious discussion. I think I might take this opportunity to start a page, to compile the various arguments and viewpoints. --Talgar 00:48, 21 December 2006 (EST)

Cavalry Assault

I've just started doing AV, so I don't feel confident enough to edit this section myself. However, I would like to note that the page currently lists players of Honored reputation (or higher) as the only ones who can launch a cavalry assault. Based on my experience, this is not true. In an AV this evening, our team had quite a few support questers, and we did manage to stock the stables with enough mounts. I was able to direct the cavalry master to ride out, despite being either Neutral or somewhat Friendly with the Frostwolf Clan. (Rep leveled at some point during the game, I don't know which I was.) Can someone provide some confirmation and then edit the article accordingly? --Nyxia 06:55, 25 October 2006 (EDT)

Wolves Repopping

It has been shown on multiple occasions that looting (or not looting) the dogs has no effect on their respawn time, since they will do so each time the general resets, whether looted or not. With regards to this, it seems to have been changed. Drek was reset last night and the dogs did not repop (and they had NOT been looted). Has anyone else seen this?

Confirmed! Looting dogs has NO effect at all. They will only respawn if Drek resets, otherwise they will NOT. Make sure u get this, we still have people in AV who thinks otherwise and wolves still respawn (to their surprise) even though no loots occured cause they reset Drek. --Spectrezh 12:20, 18 December 2006 (EST)

Close, but not quite. The wolves respawn once Drek kills everyone on his hate list (or agro list, or whatever you want to call it). When he is kited outside his room the wolves will not respawn. When that one solo player runs in a dies the wolves respawn. It's really that simple. Looting has never had, and still has no effect on them repopping.

Reputation Gains

Being an Orc Shaman and running AV multiple times, I have reached Exalted status with Orgrimmar (999/1000).

The repeatable turn-in quests (like the blood and armor scraps) now gives me reputation for "Horde" versus just "Orgrimmar".

Anyone else experience the same thing?

~Yozomros (Lvl 60 Orc Shaman: US-Proudmoore)

Although I'm a Human Paladin, i did see my rep with Ironforge go up alot after i became exalted (999/1000) with AV. It's close to revered now. I have also seen rep points for all Alliance depending on who u turn them into. for example, if i turn them into Druids, then its Darnassus, a dwarf (Ironforge), a human (SW) and so on...

~Spectrezh (lvl 60 Human Paladin: US-Vek'nilash)

Since 2.0.1, I've been getting Gnomeregan Exiles rep instead of Alliance rep.

~Jeian (Level 67 human warlock: US - Draenor)

The game just seems to pick one of your alliance factions to show when you do turnins. I think it might be your highest faction that isn't 999/1000 exalted, but I'm not 100% sure on that. I did the exodar exalted grind before TBC and the faction changed every so often.

Regardless of what faction it reports, you are definitely getting rep for all 5 when you do turnins.

~Themorrigan (70 Human Warlock, US-Kil'Jaeden)

I've maxed out on rep for Darnassus, Ironforge and Stormwind. When I do quests, I get a minimal amount of rep for Exodar. I have less Exodar rep than Gnomeregan Exiles rep.

Deadoralive 21:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Possible Contradiction

Hmm thats odd the game and official site say the orcs have lived there for years and the dwarves entered/invaded. But the Rpg book says the dwarves lived for there years and the orcs and trolls entered/invaded. I'm going to go with the site on this one because the books about the orcs says they lived there first. It should be mentioned that these points contradict each other. Zarnks 19:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Despite your opinions that a contradiction of some sort exists, there are also differing opinions. First off have you ever heard of retcons? Sometimes older material is updated in newer sources (replacing older material), other times flavor lore exists.

Secondly it is the policy of this wiki, that all sources are of equal validity. Novels, RPG, Games, Manga are equal sources of lore as stated by Metzen. We don't place one source over another.

We list all info at equal level, and we don't make them one sided to horde or alliance. It is not a dichotomy, we avoid the pro-alliance, and pro-horde debate by putting all views of the issue into the information. We also give published sources dates whenever possible.Baggins 19:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Its not his "opinon" that there is a contradicion, if the site says one thing and the book another, then there IS a contradiction - a factual statement. --Crash 19:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

"The Stormpikes have set up residence in the valley to search for natural resources and ancient relics. Despite their intentions, the Dwarven presence has sparked heated conflict with the Frostwolf Orcs to the south, who have vowed to drive the interlopers from their lands." The two sources clearly contradict one another this should be mentioned. The stormpike according to the site just moved there. This should be mentioned in the page. Besides trolls aren't even part of the Frostwolf clan and why would they attack the dwarves for no reason. That and your edits seem to vilify the horde all the time. Zarnks 19:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Stop saying "the site", and give links. We are about sources and facts, not opinions. User:Kirkburn/Sig3 19:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The site is THIS site (look up Alterac Valley) and Blizzard's site, http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/pvp/battlegrounds/info-alteracvalley.html - there easy enough for you?--Crash 20:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. You just gave the link where most of the information in the article comes from. If you can point out what is missing ... ? User:Kirkburn/Sig3 20:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Your edits don't even mention that the frostwolves have lived there for years and clearly paint them as the badguys. That is NPOV.

Are you reading the same article as us? We use the same info as the official site! User:Kirkburn/Sig3 20:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Your edits don't even mention that the frostwolves have lived there for years and clearly paint them as the badguys. That is NPOV. Vaandar also describes himself as an imperialist. What is Frostwolf? The answer is simple: The Frostwolf are savages trying to halt our sovereign imperialistic imperative. Zarnks 20:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a contradiction here. What I see, is one culture that has history to the mountains going back to before dark-portal times (dwarves), and frost-wolves that have a history going back to around the time of the dark portal. The valleys of alterac were the native lands of the stormpike clan, although they may not have had population centers in every valley or that valley in particular at the point in time that the frost wolves moved in. In anycase, sometime after the fact Stormpike move in to build new settlements in what they believed to be their land, to find relics of their history, and new resources. Only to encounter the frostwolves that had been settled in for decades. The dwarves mess with their spirits, however unintentionally causing the orcs to escalate a war.

Now historically this kind of thing has precidence. Take Iraq for example, it belongs to the Iraqis, but Kurds came over and settled remote areas in the moutains, in land they didn't think was wanted. However Iraq later wanted the land back, and pushed into the areas. Causing wars between the two peoples.

Another example is in ancient china. The chinese owned the nation, but later mongs moved in and took remote areas in the mountains, believing them unwanted, and thinking they would be left alone. Some time later the chinese had a use for the land and tried to take it back, causing several battles between the mong and the chinese people.

In ancient egypt there were similar encounters between Egyptians and the Sudanese over land, with both sides believing they had rights to certain land.

In WW2, the germans made claims to land in various countries because they believed german citizens (which had been living in areas for centuries or decades) held right to large plots of land in those countries.

I don't see a contradiction here, but a reflection on fairly common historical practice, that repeats itself quite a bit. That of two peoples who believe they have right to land fighting over said land.Baggins 20:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Zarnks, you should reread the text and the official info. You won't find much of a difference. The Horde quests give the Horde's biased PoV, the Alliance quests give the Alliance's biased PoV. Neither are "correct". Neither side is "in the right". The article does not paint either side as the bad guys, and I don't see where you get that from. User:Kirkburn/Sig3 20:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Saying the orcs invaded the valley is definetly NPOV. Vanndar also describes his goal as imperalistic which means he policy of forcefully extending a nation's authority by territorial gain or by the establishment of economic and political dominance over other nations. He wants the land of the orcs. Showing that he clearly desires power,he also dismisses the orcs as savages. These should be added. Zarnks 01:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It already has both sides, it mentions the orcs view that the dwarves are "interlopers" to "their land", and it Alliance pov that orcs are "invaders" to Alliance and Dwarven lands of Alterac. Seems like both sides have thrown around equally strong words..., and boht have been included.Baggins 01:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me use another example, lets say you have your own land, lets call it Zarnksland, lets say its at least 20 acres of remote land. Now, let's say that some "vagabond squatters" (choose stereotyped society here) moves into a remote corner of your land, without your knowledge. That is they have moved inside of the political boundary that seperates you from other nations. Now 20 or more years pass, you finally discover their existence, but finally decide you need the land back, and decide to "kick" them out. But they decide to fight back, thinking the land was there, and no one wanted it in the first place (believing they should have the right to it). Even if they are inside one of those pesky political borders, which defines the ownership of the land to someone else. Now take US for example say canada came in and "squated" land inside the borders, and for some reason the US missed the fact for decades. Do you honestly thing the US would allow it continue once they discovered their existence down the line?

This is the kind of thing that's going on with frostwolves, and the stormpike. Its also the same thing that happend with the iraqis and kurds, hmong and chinese, sudan and egypt, etc, throughout history. There are hundreds of examples of this kind of thing, and you know what? In all cases both sides feel the land belongs to them. Both sides don't want to give the land up, and it usually leads to war.Baggins 01:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Vanndar's policy is to try and retake land that he believes is rightfully dwarven. To say he "want[s] the land of the orcs" presumes that the Frostwolves are the "right" side. Edit: beaten by Baggins User:Kirkburn/Sig3 01:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Vaandar refers to his goal as imperialistic and calls the orcs savages. Are there any objection to this be added? Zarnks 03:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe there should be a new section with its own heading, and the WoW template, which shows the ingame contrasting views from individual characters. But it shouldn't be in the heading. Believe me some of the stuff said in the game is completely against neutral pov. Make sure you use actual quotes if possible.

Ya, some of the things the orcs call dwarves isn't nice either. As for imperialism, an imperialistic doctrine can also contain the belief of "protecting one's own empire" from other forces.

BTW, if you take "Rise of the Horde" into account the wolves of Alterac came from Outland with the invading orcs, and evolved into the ones in Alterac.Baggins 02:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I have never heard of that the meaning for imperialism. Are you sure you haven't got the wrong meaning? Vanndar clearly means territorial gain. Zarnks 03:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Its the primary definitin of two definitions within Webster's dictionary (though we are discussing american "definitions" here);

"imperial government, authority, or system", which goes into much broader discussion of "imperial", meaning "sovereign", and right to protect ones lands, or lands belong to empire or emperor. Vandar's choice of words of "sovereign imperialistic imperative" is fascinating if one interprets it from that defintion, especially since he uses the world "soveriegn" in his discription.Baggins 03:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

He describes as imperative meaning having power to restrain, control, and direct. Sounds pretty imperalistic to me. The Stormpikes aren't bad but Vanndar certainly has many unadmirable traits. Zarnks 03:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Imperialism has negative issues no matter which definition is used, control, restraint and direction, or rather dictatorial attitude is par for course. Yes, I agree, Vanndar has issues, he sounds like a meglomaniac... His comments sound quite a bit like kind of stuff General Patton was known for saying (love or hate the guy). However to be honest I'd like to know about Vanndar's boss, the thane of Stormpike clan, that originally ordered Vanndar into the valley.

As well as more about the horde's invasions into other valleys.

Btw, do you have a link to the Horde's book if they have one? That really needs to be put up for contrast, and keep the section from being one-sided.Baggins 04:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes I do. http://www.thottbot.com/?ccb=1&v=267480 Zarnks 04:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

After further research according to the game, the "imperialistic soverign imperative" originates from Magni Bronzbeard, and was issued to Vandar from Ironforge. That's to say its not something from the Stormpike clans themselves. We still know very little on what Stormpike Thane's opinion on the matter would be, but it appears that he would probably answer to Ironforge.Baggins 09:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Alliance vs. Horde captain?

Is there any reason for our captain being puny "Level 61 (Elite)" trash while the horde's captain is classified as a raidlevel boss? Privatekey 20:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The horde prob'ly sees the levels as the opposite.--SWM2448 20:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The difficulty of both bosses are around the same. Balinda is more defensive but is a caster. Galv is more offensive but is melee. --Invin Dranoel 12:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

bonus honor in 2.3

can anyone update the bonus honor section? Bdemong 18:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• I so far only know:
  • Killing Enemy Captain (75 honor)
  • Destroying an Enemy Bunker or Tower (62 honor)

Ricdak 20:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The whole thing could use a revamp after 2.3, especially the stratigie section. I really need to learn the new AV stratigies, I am confuzzled >_> Turdlette 22:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

New AV stratergy = 1 word. Defend. --Invin Dranoel 16:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)