VoidSpectre Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 BESIDES THE IMBALANCE OF DIFFERENT BRACKETS AND GEAR Just curious. If rating is what matters AND NOT GEAR. Then how will a non gear oriented arena be bad? I think a pvp community as a whole should back arena if based on the pvp Ideals of of the game. This game is clearly a 4v4 type of game and continue to be balanced as such Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yfelsung Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Because Arena is a duel in a box based on no strategy other than "kill". Rated Warzones are based on strategies that, generally, emulate a real battle. Battles are fought over things, even if those things are arbitrarily represented by a flag, or a ball, the point is that when battles are fought over stuff, new strategies evolve. When you're just killing each other in a tiny box, it's death match, and death match is the game mode for people who suck at thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VoidSpectre Posted February 13, 2012 Author Share Posted February 13, 2012 Because Arena is a duel in a box based on no strategy other than "kill". Rated Warzones are based on strategies that, generally, emulate a real battle. Battles are fought over things, even if those things are arbitrarily represented by a flag, or a ball, the point is that when battles are fought over stuff, new strategies evolve. When you're just killing each other in a tiny box, it's death match, and death match is the game mode for people who suck at thinking. How is killing a strategic group harder than capping a point(most likely after killing them) any different? this seems the same to me besides an extra thing to click. how is killing plus an extra thing to click that much more strategic besides killing efficiently? no argumentative or bitterness here. just seems so trivial to me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jadeor Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Because Arena is a duel in a box based on no strategy other than "kill". Rated Warzones are based on strategies that, generally, emulate a real battle. Battles are fought over things, even if those things are arbitrarily represented by a flag, or a ball, the point is that when battles are fought over stuff, new strategies evolve. When you're just killing each other in a tiny box, it's death match, and death match is the game mode for people who suck at thinking. Too bad most warzones promote getting 4tanks guarding 4healers... every *********** premade i see no-a-days are tanks+healers... so sad.. cant kill **** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iceperson Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 BESIDES THE IMBALANCE OF DIFFERENT BRACKETS AND GEAR Just curious. If rating is what matters AND NOT GEAR. Then how will a non gear oriented arena be bad? I think a pvp community as a whole should back arena if based on the pvp Ideals of of the game. This game is clearly a 4v4 type of game and continue to be balanced as such balance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabbathius Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Herding 8 cats is much harder than herding 2 cats. Also, when all you have on your team is 2 people, 1 good player can carry the other quite easily, even if he dies in seconds. But in an 8-team, 1 good player and 7 morons will get curbstomped 9 times out of 10. Ranked warzones are quite a bit more about skill and communication. A 5v5 arena comes close, I admit. But in a 5v5 it is always about taking out as many enemies as possible as quick as you can when the whistle blows. Which is why 99% of top rated 5v5 teams had a shammy in them - for Bloodlust. And which is why when ranked WZs start, the group will have a Marauder in it - for Bloodthirst. All in all, I don't think anyone cares. There's so many other things that need fixing, starting with class balance, before we can worry about ranked warzones or arenas. If they were introduced right now, all they would conclusively prove is that a handful of classes in this game are grossly overpowered, as their representation in top teams would be incredibly high. Of course BW can always take a Blizzard route and claim representation has nothing to do with strength, and 99% of top teams having exactly 1 shammy in a group has nothing to do with Bloodlust, it's just because they LOOOOVE shammies... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gformutorila Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 BESIDES THE IMBALANCE OF DIFFERENT BRACKETS AND GEAR Just curious. If rating is what matters AND NOT GEAR. Then how will a non gear oriented arena be bad? I think a pvp community as a whole should back arena if based on the pvp Ideals of of the game. This game is clearly a 4v4 type of game and continue to be balanced as such They are not better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rzrknight Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Because Arena is a duel in a box based on no strategy other than "kill". Rated Warzones are based on strategies that, generally, emulate a real battle. Battles are fought over things, even if those things are arbitrarily represented by a flag, or a ball, the point is that when battles are fought over stuff, new strategies evolve. When you're just killing each other in a tiny box, it's death match, and death match is the game mode for people who suck at thinking. I agree to this. Arenas are the most stupid idea i ever saw implemented in a MMO. Really it is so stupid even the dev admitted it was a mistake. I cant wait till rated wz , but i hope they NEVER implement arenas.Then again this is WoW clone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VoidSpectre Posted February 13, 2012 Author Share Posted February 13, 2012 I have seen many anti-arena posts without any valid explanation. I DO NOT WANT WOW AREJA I want a competitive environment in this game. I think they can do it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roak Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 an mmo can have both as long as they are completely separate from each other and completely separated from all other forms of pvp - its giving different types of pvp only one shared progression that makes a lot of the issues. fun warzones (xp and credits) world pvp (world valor and world rank) rated warzone (warzone valor and warzone rank) arena (arena valor and arena rank) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boshlord Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Arenas in the only other mmo I have known to have arenas was wow so ill be comparing it to that. Arenas are for people who want to mindlessly LOS and choose the FOTM group compesition. Also if groups were 2 v 2 and 3v3 arenas allow for carrying more so then 8v8 warzones because a baddie being 1 of 2 people guarding a turret in civil war will likly not call incs and also be pulled off the turret. Everyone matters in objective based pvp and that's how any real pvp should be set up. I guess you can look at wow for examples with rated bgs were various group comps became abundant in rated bgs but there were about 4 main comps for arena. I do agree though that a lot of these group make ups call for 4 tanks 4 healers such as huttball and civil war and even voidstar if you think the tanks can break down a door against other raid setups Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yfelsung Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 How is killing a strategic group harder than capping a point(most likely after killing them) any different? this seems the same to me besides an extra thing to click. how is killing plus an extra thing to click that much more strategic besides killing efficiently? no argumentative or bitterness here. just seems so trivial to me Because, again, new strategies open up. If we just have to kill each other, our only strategy is varying forms of "kill the man". In an objective based games, you get stuff like choke points, zone defense, complex passing games (in Huttball), bait and switch etc etc etc. You get strategies beyond killing. I run a premade often, and do you know one of the funniest ways to cap mid? Get your whole team to drop down and run right, then after about 5 seconds, run back to mid. Their whole team sometimes jumps down and runs to defend while your team walks into mid and caps it. In a game based on only killing, that kind of stuff can't happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iceperson Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 I have seen many anti-arena posts without any valid explanation. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VoidSpectre Posted February 13, 2012 Author Share Posted February 13, 2012 Because, again, new strategies open up. If we just have to kill each other, our only strategy is varying forms of "kill the man". In an objective based games, you get stuff like choke points, zone defense, complex passing games (in Huttball), bait and switch etc etc etc. You get strategies beyond killing. I run a premade often, and do you know one of the funniest ways to cap mid? Get your whole team to drop down and run right, then after about 5 seconds, run back to mid. Their whole team sometimes jumps down and runs to defend while your team walks into mid and caps it. In a game based on only killing, that kind of stuff can't happen. these things can exist in a complex deathmatch game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rzrknight Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 (edited) I have seen many anti-arena posts without any valid explanation. I DO NOT WANT WOW AREJA I want a competitive environment in this game. I think they can do it im sorry OP ic the problem now. You simple have belief in BW team , then allow me to tell you that it is a VERY BAD idea to believe in BW team , almost as bad as WoW arenas. Have you been looking at each patch they implement? If they add arena will be WoW copy , and a very bad copy full of bugs. Edited February 13, 2012 by rzrknight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yfelsung Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 these things can exist in a complex deathmatch game Well, they haven't existed in any Death Match game I've ever played and I've been playing games since 1986. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nashi Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Herding 8 cats is much harder than herding 2 cats. Also, when all you have on your team is 2 people, 1 good player can carry the other quite easily, even if he dies in seconds. But in an 8-team, 1 good player and 7 morons will get curbstomped 9 times out of 10. Ranked warzones are quite a bit more about skill and communication. A 5v5 arena comes close, I admit. But in a 5v5 it is always about taking out as many enemies as possible as quick as you can when the whistle blows. Which is why 99% of top rated 5v5 teams had a shammy in them - for Bloodlust. And which is why when ranked WZs start, the group will have a Marauder in it - for Bloodthirst. All in all, I don't think anyone cares. There's so many other things that need fixing, starting with class balance, before we can worry about ranked warzones or arenas. If they were introduced right now, all they would conclusively prove is that a handful of classes in this game are grossly overpowered, as their representation in top teams would be incredibly high. Of course BW can always take a Blizzard route and claim representation has nothing to do with strength, and 99% of top teams having exactly 1 shammy in a group has nothing to do with Bloodlust, it's just because they LOOOOVE shammies... You can't even use bloodlust/heroism/time warp in arena anymore...been like that for a year now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VoidSpectre Posted February 13, 2012 Author Share Posted February 13, 2012 im sorry OP ic the problem now. You simple have belief in BW team , then allow me to tell you that it is a VERY BAD idea to believe in BW team , almost as bad as WoW arenas. Have you been looking at each patch they implement? If they add arena will be WoW copy , and a very bad copy full of bugs. Excuse me? Is English your first language? Perhaps you would like to rephrase your question since this come across as nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamzaBehoulve Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 (edited) Arenas are a stupidity that should never have seen the light in any MMO. If you want Arena battles, go play DOTA, LoL, Bloodline Champions or whatever. Edited February 13, 2012 by RamzaBehoulve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VoidSpectre Posted February 13, 2012 Author Share Posted February 13, 2012 (edited) Arenas are a stupidity that should never have seen the light in any MMO. If you want Arena battles, go play DOTA, LoL, Bloodline Champions or whatever. This is no different than saying "if you want RPG go play Zelda, Final Fantasy, or Elder Scrolls" oh that's right genres evolve Edited February 13, 2012 by VoidSpectre Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irishbrewed Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 I agree with the OP. But I think the reason for no arenas is because then the Balance / best comp meta game starts and might throw even more of a negative light on Biowares class designs and they want to avoid that headache. Just my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxcolt Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Seems to me, all the people who complain that arena's are a bad choice are just the baddies that got curbstomped over and over again in wow arena's. There's a reason why Arena's were so popular they they got featured in MLG. If you don't want to play arena's fine don't do it..but don't come crying on the forums talking about how it doesn't involve any strategy or how it ruined pvp. All that does is show everyone how bad you are at the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComeAndSee Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Arena's = team death match. The strategy is to kill the other team. Warzones = objective based. You have to play both offensively + defensive and you have to micromanage where your people are and what they're doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EasymodeX Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 How are rated warzones better than arena? Warzones are better than arena because warzones are more dynamic. Not as good as a healthy open PvP system, but not terrible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traugar Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 (edited) Seems to me, all the people who complain that arena's are a bad choice are just the baddies that got curbstomped over and over again in wow arena's. There's a reason why Arena's were so popular they they got featured in MLG. If you don't want to play arena's fine don't do it..but don't come crying on the forums talking about how it doesn't involve any strategy or how it ruined pvp. All that does is show everyone how bad you are at the game. So anyone who doesn't like them is just a bad? I guess Blizzard are a bunch of bads then since they admit that they were a mistake to put in the game. Doesn't matter how much some people like them. Blizzard says they wish they had never put them in the game so any game that is a wow clone would probably avoid doing something that Blizzard considers a mistake. Edited February 13, 2012 by Traugar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts