Page 1 of 3
1
2
3
LastLast
  1. #1

    Why the aversion to skirmishes?

    I sorely miss skirmishes because they were a great way to test out Arena mods, new abilities, as well as hone your PVP skills. Reading over some of the blue notes regarding PVP today, I came across this:

    Any news about Skirmish Arenas? They're sorely missed, and you know that. Nakatoir said he'd give us a proper answer, waiting.
    We get the request a lot, but when we had them they were not widely used. We'll consider adding them back, but low priority ATM.

    Have they ever actually quantified that statement? All I ever hear about is how "they weren't widely used," but when is the last time you heard anyone saying they were doing a War Game? Ever?

    It seems like Blizzard has some kind of unwarranted aversion to skirmishes? Why, I don't know. Anyone else wonder about this?

  2. #2
    I've heard of people using the Arena, at times. About battlegrounds? Not once.

    Personally I'm still convinced that they took out Skirmishes so they wouldn't take up as many servers as they most likely have done. I remember a giant complain threads when they did it and several after that on my language forum of people asking for it to be brought back. Many people I know actually miss them. Simply because you could play Arena just for fun without any kind of pressure, because you could use them to better your cooperation with your arena mates or do some games before stepping into the Arena with a new player you didn't play together previously.

    And I remember running into some goddamn good players. I remember being destroyed by an classic grand marshall, by gladiators and some other people. So it wasn't just the rubble using them to have some fun on the side.

  3. #3
    not a Pvp fan, but I'm still convinced that is better to add things not remove them if possible. ;(
    I do hope you all will get something that you liked back.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Deleth View Post
    I've heard of people using the Arena, at times. About battlegrounds? Not once.

    Personally I'm still convinced that they took out Skirmishes so they wouldn't take up as many servers as they most likely have done.
    The server space explanation actually makes a lot of sense. I'd actually feel better if they just gave that as their answer instead of the bullshit, "They weren't widely used."

  5. #5
    I am Murloc! Firebert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Colchester, land of the squaddies, UK
    Posts
    5,562
    Quote Originally Posted by bionics View Post
    All I ever hear about is how "they weren't widely used," but when is the last time you heard anyone saying they were doing a War Game? Ever?
    Both (skirmishes and war games) are a waste of time and space.

    You're supposed to test Arena mods on the PTR, your abilities on live and hone your PvP skills in the PvP areas provided (be it Random BGs on the PTR or Arena on live).

    However, if they're cutting stuff rarely used I can see Rated BGs going on a solo queueing system before they get scrapped.
    37 + (3*7) + (3*7)
    W/L/Death count: Wolf: 0/1/1 | Mafia: 1/6/7 | TPR: 0.5/3.5/4
    SK: 0/1/1 | VT: 1.5/3.5/5 | Cult: 1/0/1
    Glyphmaster Gunhaver | Avatar by Hasana-chan

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Firebert View Post
    Both (skirmishes and war games) are a waste of time and space.

    You're supposed to test Arena mods on the PTR, your abilities on live and hone your PvP skills in the PvP areas provided (be it Random BGs on the PTR or Arena on live).

    However, if they're cutting stuff rarely used I can see Rated BGs going on a solo queueing system before they get scrapped.
    Why would you test out your abilities on live if you were to change specs or tweak certain talents? Or try games with a new partner? You saying they were a waste of time is completely subjective.

  7. #7
    I am Murloc! Firebert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Colchester, land of the squaddies, UK
    Posts
    5,562
    Quote Originally Posted by bionics View Post
    Why would you test out your abilities on live if you were to change specs or tweak certain talents? Or try games with a new partner? You saying they were a waste of time is completely subjective.
    You get nothing out of them. No points, no rating, nothing.

    Change specs/talents? Go to a Random BG, you can both test and get Honor. Try games with a new partner? Jump straight into twos with them if you want to preserve your threes rating, you can both train together and get Conquest Points.

    Sure, my opinion is subjective, but I don't see the point of re-adding something to the game that gives no reward (when Dailies give Valor), or if they do get given a reward, is easily exploitable.
    37 + (3*7) + (3*7)
    W/L/Death count: Wolf: 0/1/1 | Mafia: 1/6/7 | TPR: 0.5/3.5/4
    SK: 0/1/1 | VT: 1.5/3.5/5 | Cult: 1/0/1
    Glyphmaster Gunhaver | Avatar by Hasana-chan

  8. #8
    Because why would I want to go into a random BG and test it out against 10-15 other players when Arena is based around a much smaller configuration? You rarely get the chance to go 1on1 or 2vs2 in BGs unless you're an idiot fighting in the road. Not that conducive, to be honest, and skirmishes were a much better measuring stick.

    Besides that, they were actually fun. If I derived enjoyment from playing them (as well as plenty of other individuals) and they were queued up more than War Games are currently, who is to say they're useless? Makes them about as useless as pet battles or getting achievement points.

  9. #9
    Field Marshal
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Earth.
    Posts
    54
    You get to practice and try new things without risking rating. That was their purpose. That's why people want them back.

  10. #10
    I am Murloc! Firebert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Colchester, land of the squaddies, UK
    Posts
    5,562
    Quote Originally Posted by bionics View Post
    Because why would I want to go into a random BG and test it out against 10-15 other players when Arena is based around a much smaller configuration? You rarely get the chance to go 1on1 or 2vs2 in BGs unless you're an idiot fighting in the road. Not that conducive, to be honest, and skirmishes were a much better measuring stick.
    You rarely get to fight all fifteen unless you're soloqueuing AV or IoC during their respective weekends.

    Twos bracket is already there to be the measuring stick.

    Quote Originally Posted by bionics View Post
    Besides that, they were actually fun. If I derived enjoyment from playing them (as well as plenty of other individuals) and they were queued up more than War Games are currently, who is to say they're useless? Makes them about as useless as pet battles or getting achievement points.
    I don't see how an Arena where the enemy team can just insta-quit because you have an OP class in your composition, wasting the time of both teams, with no reward, can be fun. It's like Texas Hold 'em with no money involved.

    However, that's your opinion. Like I said, Skirmishes aren't needed any more.

    ---------- Post added 2012-11-18 at 06:16 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Mordakanen View Post
    You get to practice and try new things without risking rating. That was their purpose. That's why people want them back.
    The twos bracket is where you practise and try new things without risking your threes rating.
    37 + (3*7) + (3*7)
    W/L/Death count: Wolf: 0/1/1 | Mafia: 1/6/7 | TPR: 0.5/3.5/4
    SK: 0/1/1 | VT: 1.5/3.5/5 | Cult: 1/0/1
    Glyphmaster Gunhaver | Avatar by Hasana-chan

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Firebert View Post
    You rarely get to fight all fifteen unless you're soloqueuing AV or IoC during their respective weekends.

    Twos bracket is already there to be the measuring stick.
    Yeah, exactly. You don't fight all fifteen nor do you get to go two on two, three on three, or five on five like you would in Arena. One team will most certainly be lopsided/comprised of classes/specs that you wouldn't normally see in Arena.

    By your own logic, twos can get you points. So why unnecessarily sacrifice your rating when you could easily just queue up for a 2s skirmish in a second and test that way? Also, Blizzard themselves has admitted that they don't balance for 2s, nor will they try, which is why they made getting Glad from that bracket no longer possible.


    I don't see how an Arena where the enemy team can just insta-quit because you have an OP class in your composition, wasting the time of both teams, with no reward, can be fun. It's like Texas Hold 'em with no money involved.
    They could do the same in regular Arena if they wanted. That's the nature of it.


    The twos bracket is where you practise and try new things without risking your threes rating.
    Twos is entirely different from threes as well as fives. The entire nature of balance and strategy is modified. Why would I practice for 3s in a 2s match? Doesn't make sense.

  12. #12
    Stood in the Fire Shibuya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Osaka
    Posts
    428
    Nobody uses skirmishes, but everyone uses war games!!! Sigh. Why would you remove something that was so useful.

  13. #13
    I am Murloc! Firebert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Colchester, land of the squaddies, UK
    Posts
    5,562
    Quote Originally Posted by bionics View Post
    Why would I practice for 3s in a 2s match? Doesn't make sense.
    It does, and it's called synergy.
    37 + (3*7) + (3*7)
    W/L/Death count: Wolf: 0/1/1 | Mafia: 1/6/7 | TPR: 0.5/3.5/4
    SK: 0/1/1 | VT: 1.5/3.5/5 | Cult: 1/0/1
    Glyphmaster Gunhaver | Avatar by Hasana-chan

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Firebert View Post
    It does, and it's called synergy.
    Synergy with one other partner. Which is great; until you add the third to the mix. Then, like I said, the strategy becomes different.

  15. #15
    I am Murloc! Firebert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Colchester, land of the squaddies, UK
    Posts
    5,562
    Quote Originally Posted by bionics View Post
    Synergy with one other partner. Which is great; until you add the third to the mix. Then, like I said, the strategy becomes different.
    Team with X, Y and Z.
    Play twos with X and Y, Y and Z and X and Z.

    Done.
    37 + (3*7) + (3*7)
    W/L/Death count: Wolf: 0/1/1 | Mafia: 1/6/7 | TPR: 0.5/3.5/4
    SK: 0/1/1 | VT: 1.5/3.5/5 | Cult: 1/0/1
    Glyphmaster Gunhaver | Avatar by Hasana-chan

  16. #16
    It's ridiculous. They removed skirmishes in Cataclysm because they thought that they were not used much, and replace them with War Games. And then War Games end up being used even LESS than the skirmishes, yet they can't realize that.

    The only use WarGames have are for running tournaments. That's all. I've never seen a single one played on my realm at all. Meanwhile, in WotLK I skirmished all the time.

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Firebert View Post
    Team with X, Y and Z.
    Play twos with X and Y, Y and Z and X and Z.

    Done.
    You don't play threes much, do you? And again, that's still only synergy with ONE other person at a time. Not both. Not sure why you're still trying to grasp at straws with your logic.

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Penguintamer View Post
    It's ridiculous. They removed skirmishes in Cataclysm because they thought that they were not used much, and replace them with War Games. And then War Games end up being used even LESS than the skirmishes, yet they can't realize that.

    The only use WarGames have are for running tournaments. That's all. I've never seen a single one played on my realm at all. Meanwhile, in WotLK I skirmished all the time.
    Wargames can be helpful for RPers in some BGs such as AV or even AB
    You must become a Master Baiter if you want to want to master the One-eyed Fish of the Dark Caverns!

  19. #19
    I am Murloc! Firebert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Colchester, land of the squaddies, UK
    Posts
    5,562
    Quote Originally Posted by bionics View Post
    That's only synergy with ONE other person at a time. Not both.
    I play threes enough to know that at most (non-bleeding-edge) levels, having synergy with your respective partners is far more useful than "strategy" against specific enemy compositions, and if you do wish to play at bleeding-edge levels, there's plenty of resources (AJ for one) that give better guidance than what synergising can provide.

    Cut the personal attacks.
    37 + (3*7) + (3*7)
    W/L/Death count: Wolf: 0/1/1 | Mafia: 1/6/7 | TPR: 0.5/3.5/4
    SK: 0/1/1 | VT: 1.5/3.5/5 | Cult: 1/0/1
    Glyphmaster Gunhaver | Avatar by Hasana-chan

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Firebert View Post
    I play threes enough to know that at most (non-bleeding-edge) levels, having synergy with your respective partners is far more useful than "strategy" against specific enemy compositions, and if you do wish to play at bleeding-edge levels, there's plenty of resources (AJ for one) that give better guidance than what synergising can provide.

    Cut the personal attacks.
    Synergy with your partners is a given and requisite knowledge, really.

    Playing with X+Y, Y+Z, and X+Z doesn't solve much of anything in 3s because the entire dynamic is changed.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •