Why people hate arenas

[EasymodeX]

You don't even bother to back up your claim that Arenas aren't "real pvp" you just say it and start talking about something completely irrelevant to the discussion.

 

It's not a claim. It's a fact. Arenas are not real PvP.

 

If you want to claim that a narrow instanced subset of canned PvP format implemented in one specific game is "real PvP", by all means put forth some semblance of logic or argument to demonstrate that players should consider it "real PvP".

 

Good luck.

[Vulm]

It's not a claim. It's a fact. Arenas are not real PvP.

 

If you want to claim that a narrow instanced subset of canned PvP format implemented in one specific game is "real PvP", by all means put forth some semblance of logic or argument to demonstrate that players should consider it "real PvP".

 

Good luck.

 

Well, for a start, you could define what "real PvP" actually is, seeing as you use the term so often. Last time I checked PvP meant Player vs Player. So yeah, arenas are "real PvP", they are as simple as it can get. X amount of players vs X amount of players.

[Lazorous]

I refuse to accept that any such thing as Esport exists. As an athlete I find calling anything a sport where you sit on your arse clicking a mouse is retarded. Similar to Chess being called a sport. Dumbest stuff I've heard. Now I've gotten that off my chest.

 

The reason why arena is a bad idea for SWTOR, and why it was bad for WoW, is the fact that it leads to balancing around a certain gameplay, i.e. 3's, or 2's or 4's whatever. It just means you will get huge issues with balancing a game that already works fairly well. And the only way to go around it is to create FOTM classes so everyone gets their 15 min of fame. Not for me thanks.

 

If you're going by the technical definition of "Sports" whereas it is "an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature", then yes you have a valid point. Video games and Chess is technically not a "Sport".

 

However, there is a new definition for "E-Sports". It is known as "Electronic Sports", or to describe playing video games competitively. By that definition, Esports is completely valid to describe such games.

 

Just because you may be upset because you relate to sports and don't like the way "sports" is used, doesn't mean eSports isn't a valid term.

[Lazorous]

It's not a claim. It's a fact. Arenas are not real PvP.

 

If you want to claim that a narrow instanced subset of canned PvP format implemented in one specific game is "real PvP", by all means put forth some semblance of logic or argument to demonstrate that players should consider it "real PvP".

 

Good luck.

 

You "Opinion" of what PvP should be, is not "FACT". You may have that mixed up in your own little world, but that isn't going to fly in the real world.

Edited January 20, 2012 by Lazorous

[Dalindran]

Well, for a start, you could define what "real PvP" actually is, seeing as you use the term so often. Last time I checked PvP meant Player vs Player. So yeah, arenas are "real PvP", they are as simple as it can get. X amount of players vs X amount of players.

 

Perhaps you need to define what "arenas" mean to you. Seeing as there has only been one MMO to date that I am aware of which uses the term "Arena" for it's mini-game I would hardly say that in that particular instance it all boiled down to player vs. player. Not by a long shot.

 

I can definitely give you my definition of what pvp is not:

 

PvP is not Player vs Gear

PvP is not Player vs Class

PvP is not Player vs Mechanic

PvP is not Player vs Macro

PvP is not Player vs Third Party Addon

PvP is not Player vs "Canned Hunt"

PvP is not Player vs Reward

PvP is not Player vs Frame-rate

PvP is not Player vs Hardware

PvP is not Player vs Latency

 

 

I could probably go on, but there really isn't any point to it. Everyone has an opinion and you know what they say about people and their opinions.

 

Have fun !

[Grafikk]

Arenas destroy PvP.

 

Seriously look at WoW.

 

This. You want areans? WoW is that way ------>

[Twot]

First off, i'm not arguing for arenas in swtor (at least not yet). I feel they have numerous larger "problems" that need fixed before they go adding whole new sections to the game. However, this has turned moreso into an argument about arenas in general so i'll give my two cents.

 

As stated before, something doesn't become a recognized, competitive, professional esport by not being popular. Arenas have died off, certainly, but in their hayday it's undeniable that they were successful.

 

With the implementation of arenas, as expressed by WoW's dev team and several players, the biggest concern/problem is how to balance PvP without hurting PvE or vice versa. Now, if you agree with the statement i just made, then doesn't it seem a little ridiculous to make claims that "1% of the population cared about arenas" or a similar small percentage cared? Why would the largest concern of both devs and players be how to balance THE ENTIRE GAME around a system 1% of players cared about? They started catering to the "average" player back in BC when they removed attunements.

 

The question of how to balance both PvP and PvE has also confused me. Imo, this doesn't seem like a hard fix. Just have abilities do slightly different things in each setting. I'm not suggesting to make an ability ranged for PvE but melee for PvP. Something as small as a damage reduction, or damage increase, or maybe the addition or subtraction of a certain HoT/DoT would suffice. If you look at the game it's already in there. Some abilities can't be used in PvP (LoH and now Hero i believe, that may have happened after i stopped so i'm not positive). You also have differences in CC for PvP and PvE. Of course a sheep or a sap isn't going to last a minute in an arena. That was recognized fairly quickly. Yes it's one game but with two entirely different sections that have entirely different needs. They shouldn't have been balanced as one.

 

For all those saying arenas were more about gear or more about comp. I feel you're missing something about the game. There are examples of people without the best gear doing well and there are examples of people without conventional comps doing well. Granted they're few and far between so i won't fixate on them. Instead, i'll point out that from 2200 on, everyone has the same gear. Yes, there was a period in there where you were trying to get over that milestone and facing people that outgeared you. But it was brief. Saying the comp you chose mattered. Of course it mattered. Lets look at the flipside to that statement, now comps don't matter at all, everyone can have fun and play whatever they want. On what level of reasoning then does it make sense that a 3's team of 3 holy pallies should win against a more conventional comp? They may not ever lose, but they're certainly not going to even win. Take any competitive sport, football for instance. An entire team of quarterbacks doesn't stand a chance against a more conventional football team composition. Yes comp mattered and there have been some standard solid comps that have persisted through seasons (rmp, rls) but there are always new ones forming. If you want to compete in anything in life, you either have to follow conventional wisdom and choose something that's proven to work time and again, or be innovative (not randomly making decisions but mapping out and planning something new). Look at when african turtle cleave first came out, people didn't think it'd work, it had never been seen before, yet they lost something like 2 games out of close to a thousand (it's been a few seasons i can't remember). If you didn't enjoy arenas then fine, they aren't for everyone. But if you dislike arenas because your team didn't get high enough or you didn't get the best gear, i'm sorry but that falls on your shoulders. Trying to play a comp that doesn't mesh and shares DR's is your fault, not the game's, not the devs'. Not having the best gear is again, your fault, all those people with the best gear started in the same place as everyone else.

 

If it was gear and comps that mattered the most then it wouldn't have been the same groups of people at every MLG and blizzcon, it wouldn't have been the same few teams that beat everyone on the tournament realms (you know the place where you could pick any item in the game and have an instant max lvl for any class of any race).

 

Idk, i guess thats it for my vent session.

[Vulm]

Perhaps you need to define what "arenas" mean to you. Seeing as there has only been one MMO to date that I am aware of which uses the term "Arena" for it's mini-game I would hardly say that in that particular instance it all boiled down to player vs. player. Not by a long shot.

 

I can definitely give you my definition of what pvp is not:

 

PvP is not Player vs Gear

PvP is not Player vs Class

PvP is not Player vs Mechanic

PvP is not Player vs Macro

PvP is not Player vs Third Party Addon

PvP is not Player vs "Canned Hunt"

PvP is not Player vs Reward

PvP is not Player vs Frame-rate

PvP is not Player vs Hardware

PvP is not Player vs Latency

 

 

I could probably go on, but there really isn't any point to it. Everyone has an opinion and you know what they say about people and their opinions.

 

Have fun !

 

I'm using the language of WoW, as most people understand it.

 

But hey, I could definitely give you the definition of what pvp is:

 

PvP is Player vs Player. Because it doesn't have to be balanced to be PvP.

 

Have fun !

Edited January 20, 2012 by Vulm

[BloatedGuppy]

I'm using the language of WoW, as most people understand it.

 

But hey, I could definitely give you the definition of what pvp is:

 

PvP is Player vs Player. Because it doesn't have to be balanced to be PvP.

 

Have fun !

 

No, it doesn't have to be balanced to be PvP. But it does have to be balanced for rankings to mean anything.

[Lazorous]

No, it doesn't have to be balanced to be PvP. But it does have to be balanced for rankings to mean anything.

 

Whether it means something it or not is irrelevant. At any point in time when it is a Player vs Player battle, it is PVP.

 

Warzones = PvP

Battlegrounds = PvP

Arenas = PvP

World Battles against other players = PvP

 

Now whether the environment in which those battles are fought has any meaning to you, is strictly an added opinion, but not a defining factor of what is PvP.

[Kaisernick]

"ARENA IS NOT RP."

 

Sorry kids, balance > RP. This game will die without balance. That's the bottom line. If the game mechanics are a joke, telling people to "imagine it like this" fixes nothing. Search your feelings, you know this to be true.

 

And, if roleplay is really what you want, go do some LARP. LIGHTNING BOLT!

 

thougth some people may consider this to be a main problem it is well established that there are areans in star wars, i mean episode 2 anyone??

 

lore wise areans wouldnt destroy rp.

 

however right now i feel that some classes need a little balanceing so untill thats solved areanas should not be in right now.

[Dalindran]

"Not having the best gear is again, your fault, all those people with the best gear started in the same place as everyone else."

 

This is a very common misnomer that is in fact not true. Nobody started in the same place because if they did they would all be the same, hence the word "same". Fact is they started in different places in "time". Some people started sooner and some started later. Saying they "started in the same place" is a fallacy.

 

It is akin to saying a sick infant should be able to drive himself to the hospital. I mean we all started at birth right? Why do I have a car and the ability to drive it and he doesn't? Sucks to be him huh?

 

The fact is the the people who have gear and the people who don't didn't start in the same place, those with the gear started in an earlier place and as such have an advantage, over those who came later and don't have it.

 

The fact that gear even plays a significant role in successful pvp is a major problem, if you don't understand why that is then you are in fact and even bigger part of the problem. I will leave you to try to figure out why that is.

 

Have fun !

 

PS: For the record I don't personally care about "gear gaps" I will pvp the same either way. I pvp for the sake of pvp, not for what I can get from it, or what advantage I might get as a result of engaging in pvp gameplay.

[Vulm]

No, it doesn't have to be balanced to be PvP. But it does have to be balanced for rankings to mean anything.

 

Well yes, that would be balanced PvP, not "real PvP."

Edited January 20, 2012 by Vulm

[BloatedGuppy]

Whether it means something it or not is irrelevant. At any point in time when it is a Player vs Player battle, it is PVP.

 

Warzones = PvP

Battlegrounds = PvP

Arenas = PvP

World Battles against other players = PvP

 

Now whether the environment in which those battles are fought has any meaning to you, is strictly an added opinion, but not a defining factor of what is PvP.

Let's not get our wires crossed. I'm not the one saying "it's not real PvP". I do think you're dealing with an exaggerated attack there, designed to counterbalance the people who think the Arena was some kind of godsend of skill and aptitude.

 

How's this...it's not an e-sport. Or if you find the term "e-sport" silly, it's not a sport. It was all over the place in terms of balance, exploits, loopholes, etc. Rankings, therefore, were totally goofy in that environment.

 

I'm arguing against ranked PvP in an environment that doesn't support it. It's an argument I'm likely to lose, but there you go. I'm not arguing against letting people duel in a little room if that's what floats their boat.

[Dalindran]

No, it doesn't have to be balanced to be PvP. But it does have to be balanced for rankings to mean anything.

 

 

To paraphrase Yoda:

 

"Rankings, E-peen? A true PvP'er craves not these things..."

 

Have fun;)!

[Vulm]

Let's not get our wires crossed. I'm not the one saying "it's not real PvP". I do think you're dealing with an exaggerated attack there, designed to counterbalance the people who think the Arena was some kind of godsend of skill and aptitude.

 

How's this...it's not an e-sport. Or if you find the term "e-sport" silly, it's not a sport. It was all over the place in terms of balance, exploits, loopholes, etc. Rankings, therefore, were totally goofy in that environment.

 

I'm arguing against ranked PvP in an environment that doesn't support it. It's an argument I'm likely to lose, but there you go. I'm not arguing against letting people duel in a little room if that's what floats their boat.

 

Stop exaggerating peoples claims, I certainly don't believe arenas were a godsend of skill and aptitude. I just believe it took skill as opposed to other things in WoW.

 

I'm arguing in favour of a rated system for something that already exists and isn't game breaking, so in essence, I think we want the same things. However, I can forsee rated warzones becoming tedious, and if we want balanced PvP, this isn't the way to go either. In my opinion something new needs to be introduced.

 

In terms of gear affecting PvP, this is an MMO after all, and gear progression is needed. When everyone has the gear, it is balanced. Gear just becomes a necessity for balance.

[Noleader]

My question would be this: Would those asking for Arena PvP still seek it if there was no gear rewards outside of what can be earned in WZs?

 

I suspect a large group who wants arenas only wants them because they see more gear at the end of the rainbow. For those people why not focus your efforts into getting world PvP more enjoyable.

 

If you are looking for that challenge then get a couple friends together and join the Republic side... when you are zerged by 2x your numbers you will have a hell of a challenge on your hands.

[Destia]

Arenas increase the community's overall skill-level. I'm very much in favor of adding them here. In fact I know a ton of people who aren't playing this game purely because there's no arena implemented yet. Edited January 20, 2012 by Destia

[BloatedGuppy]

Arenas increase the community's overall skill-level. I'm very much in favor of adding them in this game. In fact I know a ton of people who aren't playing this game purely because there's no arena implemented yet.

How many is "a ton"? If we assume 1-1.5 million players at the moment, what percentage of those would "the ton" of people you personally know represent?

[Vulm]

My question would be this: Would those asking for Arena PvP still seek it if there was no gear rewards outside of what can be earned in WZs?

 

I suspect a large group who wants arenas only wants them because they see more gear at the end of the rainbow. For those people why not focus your efforts into getting world PvP more enjoyable.

 

If you are looking for that challenge then get a couple friends together and join the Republic side... when you are zerged by 2x your numbers you will have a hell of a challenge on your hands.

 

Ofcourse everyone wants a reward, PvP gear that would be rewarded to players shouldn't give them an advantage. Not only this, people want to be challenged by playing people that are of their ranking.

 

And to take the last bit of your post seriously, what about empire players who want to remain empire and be challenged?

Edited January 20, 2012 by Vulm

[EternalFinality]

Whether it means something it or not is irrelevant. At any point in time when it is a Player vs Player battle, it is PVP.

 

Warzones = PvP

Battlegrounds = PvP

Arenas = PvP

World Battles against other players = PvP

 

Now whether the environment in which those battles are fought has any meaning to you, is strictly an added opinion, but not a defining factor of what is PvP.

 

The only reason people would want it is for the rankings. Otherwise, you can create an arena just by getting people together in the open world and killing each other. Last team standing "wins."

[Lazorous]

Let's not get our wires crossed. I'm not the one saying "it's not real PvP". I do think you're dealing with an exaggerated attack there, designed to counterbalance the people who think the Arena was some kind of godsend of skill and aptitude.

 

How's this...it's not an e-sport. Or if you find the term "e-sport" silly, it's not a sport. It was all over the place in terms of balance, exploits, loopholes, etc. Rankings, therefore, were totally goofy in that environment.

 

I'm arguing against ranked PvP in an environment that doesn't support it. It's an argument I'm likely to lose, but there you go. I'm not arguing against letting people duel in a little room if that's what floats their boat.

 

My response wasn't an attack. If I were attacking, I'd have insulted your intelligence in some manner.

 

Your previous response was on a subject in which the poster was defining what PvP is. So it fell in line with connecting your response to defining PvP, which sounded as though PvP required some form of ranking. Apparently that isn't the case so I will retract my previous post to you, although it can serve as information for others questioning the raw definition of PvP.

 

Whether it can be classified as an E-Sport is another different matter.

 

I'm neither for nor against Arenas. If it happens, I'll give it a shot. If it doesn't, I won't cry over it. I came into this game knowing PvP wasn't the main focus so I didn't have a lot of high expectations for it. It's ok the way it is, but it definitely can be better from a PvP enthusiast's standpoint. But again, this game was not designed primarily for PvP. If some people can chill and recognize that, they might have a better day. And if they don't like the current situation with PvP, they can cancel, or wait it out and see what BW does in the future.

[VertisReaper]

World PvP = Ilum, yea works real well. rofl.

[BloatedGuppy]

I came into this game knowing PvP wasn't the main focus so I didn't have a lot of high expectations for it. It's ok the way it is, but it definitely can be better from a PvP enthusiast's standpoint. But again, this game was not designed primarily for PvP. If some people can chill and recognize that, they might have a better day. And if they don't like the current situation with PvP, they can cancel, or wait it out and see what BW does in the future.

 

In this, my friend, we are in 100% agreement. Personally, I'm looking to GW2 and TSW to get my PvP itch scratched.

[Lazorous]

The only reason people would want it is for the rankings. Otherwise, you can create an arena just by getting people together in the open world and killing each other. Last team standing "wins."

 

That was in reference to what is defined as PvP.

 

Your topic is what can potentially define an Arena. The two are different and I think these topics may be have fallen victim to miscommunication.