How are rated warzones better than arena?

[Forsbacka]

What are you talking about? There were plenty of people who ranked solely through RBGs and not through Arena at all. The team size differences aside, the strategies for winning in RBGs were drastically different than arena.

 

Wouldnt call 1 or max 2 different tactics drastically different.Main thing was still killing, CCing in smaller groups.

[Telaan]

Wouldnt call 1 or max 2 different tactics drastically different.Main thing was still killing, CCing in smaller groups.

 

The strat changed depending on the RBG. Additionally, because of the size of the teams, RBGs allowed for more variability in team comp. I don't think anyone has argued that glad level arena players are/were skilled PvPers. But your insistence that they are the end-all-be-all of PvPers is ridiculous. Many flop in PvP outside of that niche and controlled environment.

[Forsbacka]

The strat changed depending on the RBG. Additionally, because of the size of the teams, RBGs allowed for more variability in team comp. I don't think anyone has argued that glad level arena players are/were skilled PvPers. But your insistence that they are the end-all-be-all of PvPers is ridiculous. Many flop in PvP outside of that niche and controlled environment.

 

Only place where was some tactical variations was new version of EOTS. In WSG was 1, in AB 1, in Gilneas 1, if you dont want to count taking LM or GM with your home base as different tactics. Only team i ever saw that had some imagination was Gamesense 1st team but other than that, tactic was same for every team everytime.

 

 

Edit: and i just said as an example that every top team in RBGs was made mostly out of arena players and zero made out of mostly non arena players. Be it skill of arena players or beeing bad of BG heroes but thats the way it was.

Edited February 14, 2012 by Forsbacka

[Mashup]

I dont really care whats better. For me I hated rated BGs in WoW and always loved arena. Get together with a friend and skirmish was the best thing in the game. I dont really care about balance if I have a good time playing.

[MandalorianElbow]

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.

 

I always love seeing assinine comments such as this one. As a former Gladiator of S3 and S4, I am completely opposed to Arenas in TOR. If you want Arenas, go back to Azeroth and enjoy your Pillar vs. Pillar LOS tomfoolery...or play LoL for a more competitive PvP experience.

 

Also, I am willing to bet you were carried by a competant team. Just because your buds were good and you leeched their rating doesn't make you a boss *****. Come up with a better argument, rather than "baddies r bad, her her her ha ha hoo hoo ho!!!11one".

[anticept]

 

Edit: and i just said as an example that every top team in RBGs was made mostly out of arena players and zero made out of mostly non arena players. Be it skill of arena players or beeing bad of BG heroes but thats the way it was.

 

Umm could it be because arena was introduced about 4-5 years before RBGs and was the only legit way of getting best pvp gear so yes every "competetive" pvp´er had to go through arena to gear up to be able to curbstomp players in normal bgs. If rated bgs would have been introduced in tbc and arenas later you´d be worshiping RBG players and not arena guys

oh ye remember the times before arena was introduced every arena player used to be bg hero .... unless you started at tbc or later then you´re just talking out of your ***.

[Forsbacka]

Umm could it be because arena was introduced about 4-5 years before RBGs and was the only legit way of getting best pvp gear so yes every "competetive" pvp´er had to go through arena to gear up to be able to curbstomp players in normal bgs. If rated bgs would have been introduced in tbc and arenas later you´d be worshiping RBG players and not arena guys

oh ye remember the times before arena was introduced every arena player used to be bg hero .... unless you started at tbc or later then you´re just talking out of your ***.

 

Gear reseted after every season. At higher ratings everyone had equal gear, and when RBGs was introduced, you could get exactly same gear from arenas as from RBGs, athough getting gear from RBGs was much easier and much faster than from arena. And you are right, about vanilla times, although many of onld vanilla ranked players were terrible in arena, old Bg system required no skill, in the team i grinded rank 13 with just a lot of time to play, only few people ever broked 2k in arena and most of the rank 14s on the server stopped playing arena at season 1 when they saw how terrible they were in "skill" based PvP.

 

 

Anyways, all that is proven is that every top team in RBgs was made out of mostly high rated arena players. For me, RBGs was very fun, more fun than arena on various chars, but getting t2 weapon from it felt a bit of cheating cause it was so damn easy to get fairly high ratings in RBGs unlike in arena.

Edited February 14, 2012 by Forsbacka

[Yutaa]

(sry for my englihs, its far from perfect)

 

PVP can't be balanced (at the same time) around 1v1 _and_ around 4v4 deathmatch _and_ around 4v4 (or 8v8) objective based WZ. And this is desigh desicion. Developers need to choose.

 

 

So as a former gladiator I will ask you to not encourage Bioware to balance PVP around small scale deathmatch. I will try to explain why.

 

Of cause it is not about skill. False arguments are false.

 

Its about entertainment. Fun factor.

 

I think most of us has those moments when 2 ppl on Alderaan where able to protect the node against 4-5 attackers long enought for our team to...do something. Or breaking the capping on the last half of second...

 

This is what will never happen in deathmatch. But this is not the real problem with arena.

 

The real problem is the NUMBER OF KILLS PER MINUTE. Arenas are just...boring.

 

In WOW in 3v3 when both teams know what are they doing average match takes how long...20 minutes? 30?

 

Players are running around the pilars, doing something ,phew phew and...nothing happen.

Then few minutes later dd cooldowns are ready....switch...harder, harder...10% of hp...ops again full HP. Lets run around the pilars for 3 more minutes...

 

So if you want fun (and skill based PVP) - ask for balance around objective based PVP.

[anticept]

Gear reseted after every season. At higher ratings everyone had equal gear, and when RBGs was introduced, you could get exactly same gear from arenas as from RBGs, athough getting gear from RBGs was much easier and much faster than from arena. And you are right, about vanilla times, although many of onld vanilla ranked players were terrible in arena, old Bg system required no skill, in the team i grinded rank 13 with just a lot of time to play, only few people ever broked 2k in arena and most of the rank 14s on the server stopped playing arena at season 1 when they saw how terrible they were in "skill" based PvP.

 

 

Anyways, all that is proven is that every top team in RBgs was made out of mostly high rated arena players. For me, RBGs was very fun, more fun than arena on various chars, but getting t2 weapon from it felt a bit of cheating cause it was so damn easy to get fairly high ratings in RBGs unlike in arena.

 

Agreed getting rank 13-14 was just about how much time you spend and most of my servers GMs quitted after s1-2 in tbc because they barely hit 1.8k . But arena isn´t really a skill test i got 2k+ rating on S2 in TBC with me affilock and my mates SP on our leveling blues greens and some crafted epics it was all about FOTM classes/combos and i consider myself little above average player . Only in some rare occasions and being a highly skilled player/team could reach top ranks in arena with out some cookiecutter builds or fotm class/combos.

 

In all fairness arena in too small scale would fail totally in this game there are so many exploits in the pvp system and the whole engine being unreliable so many random DC´s Freezes etc.

Any healer/tank combo would own 2v2 maybe 2sent/maras with good players could win them.

Most of the AC´s would have no chance in getting top without rolling healer/tank build.

 

Sniper nope.

OP only healing

Merc only healing.

Jugg only tank.

Mara barely.

Sorc healing.

PT only tank.

Sins only tank if even then.

And their reb counterparts.

 

And that was no offence to anyones AC but some classes are just too weak and don´t have the utility to succeed in arena at 2v2 3v3´s being that they can be los´d to nullify their dps , inability to heal themselfs or total lack of survival mechanics.

 

So only solution would be 4v4 (+) size combat where you can start seeing most of the AC´s having success.

[iceperson]

At high ratings there is 1 or max 2 viable tactics in WZs just like in RBGs. You make it sound like arena players dont have a clue about objective based PvP lol.

 

objective 1: find the right comp

objective 2: faceroll and beat people who didn't do objective 1

profit

 

did i do it right?

[Verraton]

I wouldn't mind seeing 1v1, 2v2, and 3v3 rated war-zones as long as they don't reward anywhere nearly as well as the current style of war-zone. Let people have their 1v1, 2v2, and 3v3's but for nothing more than bragging rights or titles. As in making this be something outside normal warzones and pvp.

[Choppaman]

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

 

Why would you ask why something sucks and then set a constraint that no one can talk about why it sucks.

[Rheeling]

I think what people want to avoid, is the whole "2v2" or "3v3" teams. Because there will be certain comps that other certain comps can't beat, and thus people will start more nerf threads. And if BioWare acted on any of those threads, the overall balance they've achieved so well already would be ruined.

 

They designed the game around full teams. I don't think 8 people per warzone was an arbitrary number. It allowed for 1 of each AC, which in both Huttball and Voidstar, would probably be optimal.