Im sick of the objective based PVP system.

[Manigma]

This would only show the class imbalance in an even brighter light. The only way for this gametype to work is for every class to be balanced for 1v1 vs every other class combination. Good luck with that.

Who is saying it will be 1 v 1, you could still fight in teams.

[bigalroe]

Indeed!

 

The Objective-based scenario where the objective is to KILL THE **** OUT OF THE ENEMIES UNTIL THEY DIE.

 

Throw in some *********** MOURKAIN TEMPLE AND LET'S GET THIS PARTY STARTED.

 

what about good old caledor woods, one flag/one place to fight

[Hethroin]

what about good old caledor woods, one flag/one place to fight

 

Caledor Woods = Single-cannon Adelraan, but this is more of a king of the hill objective.

[Knockerz]

LOL? It was extremely successful. the only problem with it was they focused on 2v2 at first and tried to balance the game around that, when they couldn't they had to do a compromise to with the community. they wanted to balance around 5v5 and larger but 3v3 had become so popular and MLG had picked it up by that time they had to balance around 3v3.

 

 

So when MLG picks a game up and it is played by millions of people for 5+ years, it wasn't successful?

 

I'm not going to go into details. If you want details I made a post about and with statics to back it. There is also the fact that Blizzard force every one to play arenas cause thats were the gear that matter could only be achieved. Thus, you can question whether arenas were really successful or not because when Blizzard allowed other avenues to get the same gear arena died.

 

Like, I said I have a lengthy post about arena on these forums with hard statistical facts that provide evidence of what I'm stating. People that been on these forums long enough probably know what I'm talking about. As far MLG they removed arenas. I also like to point out that arena participation currently compared to to bc or even woltkrena is insignificant. I think it drop some thing like down to single digits for glads compared to hundred of glads in the bc seasons. I know for a fact the number of glads was less than 20 for each bracket and for 5v5 there wasn't any in a few brackets. Point, I'm making arena is more less dead in wow and Blizzard hasn't payed attention to arena since cataclysm launched. There is also the fact that Blizzard has more subscribers than they did in bc, yet participation in f arena is in the toilet. If you want the stats go look for my post about arena with statistics to back.

Edited March 8, 2012 by Knockerz

[Cebby]

Make me miss Warhammer.. a lot of great scenarios. Had they had same faction que's may have never died.

 

As far as all the arena talk, and the go play call of duty.. wow people are confused about this subject.

 

Warhammer had great pvp scenarios.. and although flawed rvr, it was much better than ilum. It werks and its tons of fun.. for those of you who want leaps and pulls to decide matches, i feel for your limited scope.

 

Death matches can include an objective or two.. but you must kill the other team to acheive it. How many huttball games when the winning teams leaps to victory without more than 5 kills on the whole team. Thats class balance? no its objective play. I like it too.

 

I also like to test the cut of the enemys jib by getting into a frackus... try to think things through before commenting about something as fun as this type of WZ

[Zepidel]

I miss caledor woods, well except for the guards, I dont miss them.

 

Also, assisting, communicating, timing buffs/debuffs, etc takes alot more teamwork and skill then interacting with static objectives. Sure you could just try and zerg down the other team but if you do that your gonna get rolled by an organized group.

[EasymodeX]

Caledor was solid, but I didn't like it as much because the map offered very little variety: camp on the hill and win. On BFP you could assjam the enemy, peel them, attack from 3 angles, etc. Mourkain had 3 different paths for most of the map.

 

You know what would make Alderaan suck less?

 

If you could mount your speeder on the map. Kickass.

 

Remove the side-speeders, and the map would be great.

 

Zepidel-Sniper

Belatin-Scoundrel

 

Hey I know you.

Edited March 8, 2012 by EasymodeX

[EternalFinality]

"Adding arena was the biggest mistake we made."

 

- WoW devs

[Delavager]

There never been a warzone or any thing like that in any other game, except arena and it wasn't successful. I also think your playing the wrong mmorpg or plain playing the wrong game genre.

 

A) That's not true

B) That's not a valid point.

 

There exists absolutely no reason not to have a deathmatch warzone in addition to other warzones. It's just another mode of play.

 

This thread sorta shows how inherently simple minded people are.

 

What about MMO means it cannot be a deathmatch? There's no such rule that exists. An MMO is a perfectly valid medium to have a deathmatch in.

 

I'm really tired of the whole "Gear" vs "Skill" thing, cause it's a huge crock. Skill and TEAMWORK will beat Gear every day of the week. Gear really only plays a part in 1v1 scenarios, even though skill will still beat gear, but guess what, there is no such thing as a 1v1 warzone. It's also so easy to get T2 and T3 gear that it's basically not even something that's worth talking about.

 

I don't know why people assume deathmatch = arena. That's also not true. Arena in WoW specifically was a deathmatch, but deathmatch isn't Arena. Deathmatch is the game mode, Arena was the implementation of said Game mode, they are not interchangeable.

 

Now to imbalance. What is imbalance? Can you even define what balance is?

Are we balancing 1v1?

Are we balancing 8v8?

Are we balancing dmg?

Are we balancing stuns?

Are we balancing the ability to carry a huttball?

Are we balancing the ability to sneak around (stealth)?

Etc. Etc.

 

How do you define Balance? It's all subjective, and it's all biased. Additionally, balance is different in the hands of different people.

 

Do you balance around the Pro who uses everything correctly? Or do you balance around the average guy who uses their character maybe only 70% of their potential? At what point do you balance?

[Eroex]

Sorry, but WoW arena has always been a joke of an esport. Never taken seriously.

 

The reason wow didnt get nearly as popular as an Esport as some others:

 

Because it is extremely hard to follow what is going on in an arena match if you dont follow the game closely and are familiar with all wow terminology.

 

Most people in the barcrafts (starcraft esports bars) have never bought or played starcraft, but can understand what is going on and get into it.

 

Matt Leinart has been in the NFL for 5+ years. That must make him successful as a NFL quarterback, right?

 

Nice false equivalency there.

[Eroex]

"Adding arena was the biggest mistake we made."

 

- WoW devs

 

I'm pretty sure the context of what you are saying revolved around the way they added them.

[Eroex]

A) That's not true

B) That's not a valid point.

 

There exists absolutely no reason not to have a deathmatch warzone in addition to other warzones. It's just another mode of play.

 

This thread sorta shows how inherently simple minded people are.

 

What about MMO means it cannot be a deathmatch? There's no such rule that exists. An MMO is a perfectly valid medium to have a deathmatch in.

 

I'm really tired of the whole "Gear" vs "Skill" thing, cause it's a huge crock. Skill and TEAMWORK will beat Gear every day of the week. Gear really only plays a part in 1v1 scenarios, even though skill will still beat gear, but guess what, there is no such thing as a 1v1 warzone. It's also so easy to get T2 and T3 gear that it's basically not even something that's worth talking about.

 

I don't know why people assume deathmatch = arena. That's also not true. Arena in WoW specifically was a deathmatch, but deathmatch isn't Arena. Deathmatch is the game mode, Arena was the implementation of said Game mode, they are not interchangeable.

 

Now to imbalance. What is imbalance? Can you even define what balance is?

Are we balancing 1v1?

Are we balancing 8v8?

Are we balancing dmg?

Are we balancing stuns?

Are we balancing the ability to carry a huttball?

Are we balancing the ability to sneak around (stealth)?

Etc. Etc.

 

How do you define Balance? It's all subjective, and it's all biased. Additionally, balance is different in the hands of different people.

 

Do you balance around the Pro who uses everything correctly? Or do you balance around the average guy who uses their character maybe only 70% of their potential? At what point do you balance?

 

This guy has a brain in his head, I like it.

[Delavager]

I'm not going to go into details. If you want details I made a post about and with statics to back it. There is also the fact that Blizzard force every one to play arenas cause thats were the gear that matter could only be achieved. Thus, you can question whether arenas were really successful or not because when Blizzard allowed other avenues to get the same gear arena died.

 

Like, I said I have a lengthy post about arena on these forums with hard statistical facts that provide evidence of what I'm stating. People that been on these forums long enough probably know what I'm talking about. As far MLG they removed arenas. I also like to point out that arena participation currently compared to to bc or even woltkrena is insignificant. I think it drop some thing like down to single digits for glads compared to hundred of glads in the bc seasons. I know for a fact the number of glads was less than 20 for each bracket and for 5v5 there wasn't any in a few brackets. Point, I'm making arena is more less dead in wow and Blizzard hasn't payed attention to arena since cataclysm launched. There is also the fact that Blizzard has more subscribers than they did in bc, yet participation in f arena is in the toilet. If you want the stats go look for my post about arena with statistics to back.

 

So I call BS. What Statistical facts are you talking about? I cannot find your post on it. Have a link?

 

Additionally, it is FACT that MANY people ONLY PLAYED WOW for Arena. The Arena system itself was perfectly fine.

 

What about having XvX players duke it out is an issue?

 

I did find this post from you though:

 

Yes, I still don't have a level 50 and I love leveling alts. Thus, until I'm done leveling my alts and if there isn't any more content added at max level, then I will quit. In wow I have one account with max number characters with like 8/10 chars being over 80 and two between 1-70 on the illidan server. Plus, I have a second account with like 2 over 80 and two between 70-80, plus a bunch of low levels below 60. However, I got that many alts cause I been playing and dualboxing since BC.[/Quote]

 

So without any max level charcters in either game it seems, how can you even give any opinions worth considering?

[EternalFinality]

I'm pretty sure the context of what you are saying revolved around the way they added them.

 

"We didn't engineer the game and classes and balance around it, we just added it on, so it continues to be very difficult to balance. Is WoW a PvE cooperative game, or a competitive PvP game? There's constant pressure on the class balance team, there's pressure on the game itself, and a lot of times players who don't PvP don't understand why their classes are changing. I don't think we ever foresaw how much tuning and tweaking we'd have to do to balance it in that direction. "

-Rod Pardo

 

You know what the game he's describing sounds like?

 

It sounds like TOR.

[Eroex]

"We didn't engineer the game and classes and balance around it, we just added it on, so it continues to be very difficult to balance. Is WoW a PvE cooperative game, or a competitive PvP game? There's constant pressure on the class balance team, there's pressure on the game itself, and a lot of times players who don't PvP don't understand why their classes are changing. I don't think we ever foresaw how much tuning and tweaking we'd have to do to balance it in that direction. "

-Rod Pardo

 

You know what the game he's describing sounds like?

 

It sounds like TOR.

 

 

Yea and I'm not asking for a 2v2 3v3 or 5v5 arena, I'm asking for 8v8 or 16v16. Its much easier to balance when you have more class combinations available.

 

The game is designed for 8 player modes already so the balance issues wont be that large.

 

WoW was balanced for 25 man content when arenas were added, dropping it down to 2v2 caused huge balance issues. That was the issue.

[EternalFinality]

Yea and I'm not asking for a 2v2 3v3 or 5v5 arena, I'm asking for 8v8 or 16v16. Its much easier to balance when you have more class combinations available.

 

How do you figure that? It seems like stacking the overpowered classes would only make the differences more stark.

[Kitty_Whoopass]

I think having a TDM option would be fun. It would add variety.

 

There could be some variation on the no-respawn thing too. Like increasing respawn timers for each death instead of no-respawn. I think that would make you play as a team more because it would punish the guy that just runs off by himself and dies.

 

I can see this putting pressure on healers too which would be fun. There would be even more incentive to focus fire the healer. Imagine if everytime you killed the opposing team's healer they had to sit behind the wall even longer - that's a pretty good reward for your teamwork. Plus tanks would have more motivation to guard us healers which would also increase teamwork.

 

I dunno - I think it could be pretty fun.

[Seriasx]

This would only show the class imbalance in an even brighter light. The only way for this gametype to work is for every class to be balanced for 1v1 vs every other class combination. Good luck with that.

 

Where do you get these dumb ideas?

 

Pvp is NOT and never will be balanced around 1v1 combat, its not possible without playing the same class.

 

Best we could hope for is 4v4 or 8v8.

[Kai-Eurah-Tird]

You can have a team death match like in Mount and Blade Warband. Both team just fight each on the map until one team reaches a certain number of kills. FIrst team to get 300 kill wins, or whatever.

[Cebby]

It is fun, Warhammer did it for 3 years.

[Talizzar]

Mr. Poster,

 

What class do you play?

 

You do understand that many of the classes are not build around 1v1 they are complimentary classes for TEAM play.

 

Are you asking for a team death match where once you eliminate the other team you win?

 

The first team to get the first kill will probably win. As you just wiped their healer or their main dps etc. Once a side loses two forget it, then it becomes Ilum all over again. Getting steamrolled is great fun right?

 

Death squads already run around in the WZ's and they eliminate most everything in their path quickly which is how many doors are capped in VS other than the bait and ninja grab.

[Broom]

When are we going to get a warzone that focuses on killing the other team, with no respawns when zero players are left on the other team, your team wins.

 

 

Any one else feel this way? I want to see the skill in killing other players, i don't find any joy in standing next to a "node", door, or running a ball.

 

Yea you can kill other players in warzones but that's not the goal of any of these matches.

 

Mate, if you can't combine objectives and killing, you're doing it wrong.

[DarthOvertone]

I think a Death Match WZ would be awesome fun, and BW wouldn't even have to design much. Just grab a random planet map and let peeps go at it. Of course, lower the Valor/Comm rewards for this type of WZ since the match would be relatively short.

[EternalFinality]

I mean hell, even Counterstrike which is basically a deathmatch game has objective based PvP.

[Pantheros]

I think having a tdm or a king of the hill type wz is a great idea.