3v3 and 5v5 is fun, but I don't see why Blizzard haven't abandoned 2v2 because of the imbalance that occur in it.
cause they need to fire kalgan first. then they can delete arenas.
oh yea, then undo every pve nerf since day 1.
Because the only thing where PvP played seriously is still just arenas. People play rbg's because blizzard decided to give more cp and higher caps from rbg's if they wouldn't have done that they would be even more dead than arenas. Also, you balance the stuff which is competitive (arenas) not the stuff which isn't competitive (random bgs). Random bg's can be taken even less seriously than arenas also because they are just infested by bots and shit players, no need to "balance" that.
Also, the moment they balance based on RBGs, that is the moment Moonkin, DK grip, Frost Mage is nerfed to the ground. Which i dont se happening, at all.
Random BGs are the most fun for me as well. If they lowered the conquest point cap, I wonder how many people would even participate in arena or rbgs. Most I know just do them to cap points.
---------- Post added 2013-05-02 at 05:41 PM ----------
---------- Post added 2013-05-02 at 05:45 PM ----------
---------- Post added 2013-05-02 at 05:49 PM ----------
---------- Post added 2013-05-02 at 05:54 PM ----------
---------- Post added 2013-05-02 at 05:55 PM ----------
Last edited by Senathor; 2013-05-02 at 05:49 PM.
Arena's are one of the best parts of the game. Balancing the game around random bg's is a terrible idea. PVP should be balanced around 3v3 arena seeing as that is the only competitive Esport that wow has. You don't see RBG's at blizzcon do you?
Balancing around 1v1 is obviously foolish, some classes which aren't as good in 1v1 situations are significantly better when combined with teammates - they gain peels or heals or dispels or the like. Warriors by themselves are susceptible to roots (historically, not as much currently) - but Warrior+Healer (particularly Paladins for Freedom) removes the disadvantage of Warriors in a solo environment. Shadowpriests and Affliction Locks historically are vulnerable to being sat on - they rely on a lot of channeling and casting, and thus suffer from knockbacks and kicks and stuns in a way others don't (while stunned, a Ret or DK or Warriors attacks come off cooldown, a Rogue or Feral regenerates energy - once the stun ends they get to spam their best attacks, not true for dot classes). So you can't balance immobile casters around 1v1, because when they have peels (and can freecast) they suddenly become a very different creature.
Even balancing around 2v2 is ineffective, just as some classes aren't great in solo environments, some classes don't fully meet their potential until they have more than themselves and a single ally to play with. Holy Priests are terrible in 1v1, 2v2, and 3v3 - but in 5v5 and 10v10 they suddenly aren't so bad. The reason is that Circle of Healing and Divine Hymn hit 5 targets - if you are solo - this means that the core spell of your spec has only 20% effectiveness (1/5 targets available), in 2v2 it is only 40% effective, in 3v3 it is only 60% effective - and only even that if everyone is taking damage simultaneously. In 5v5 and 10v10, CoH and DH are 100% effective - there are 5+ targets, there is lots of damage going out - and the specs core spell actually does what it was designed to do.
In 3v3 some classes seem much better than others, Shadow is great in 3v3 because it scales particularly well to that bracket - but in 5v5 and 10v10 Shadow representation declines quite rapidly. For example this is because in a 1v1 scenario, Vampiric Embrace heals the Spriest for 50% of all the damage they deal (100% if glyphed), in 2v2 it heals for 25% (50% if glyphed), in 3v3 it heals for 16.5% (33% glyphed), but in 5v5 it heals for just 10% (20% if glyphed), and in 10v10 it heals for only 5% (10% if glyphed). In the first three smaller brackets, that represents a significant heal and a useful survival cooldown - in the subsequent two larger brackets it's hardly noticeable. Not to say that these individual abilities solely decide what bracket each spec will be effective in, but they demonstrate how because abilities have different effectiveness in different brackets - abilities impact scalability.
5v5 and 10v10 (RBGs) are just as dependent on team composition as the lower brackets. Take Shadow vs. Boomkins for a moment. In 2v2, Silence is a 5 second duration, 45 second cooldown single target silence spell - it silences 50% of the enemy team in 2v2. Solar Beam is an 8 second duration 60 second cooldown multi-target silence, that can potentially silence 100% of the enemy team: but often 2v2 has at least one enemy who doesn't care about silences (warriors, hunters, rogues, etc). In 10v10, Silence has the same duration and cooldown of course, but now it only silences 10% of the enemy team (1/10 targets). But, when a boomkin is combined with a DK's Gorefiend's Grasp - Solar Beam can pretty consistently silence 100% of the enemy team: ten times the effectiveness of Shadow's Silence. Boomkins aren't good in 2v2's, but they are mandatory for 10v10 - the more opponents available, the stronger boomkin abilities become - while Shadow is the opposite - strongest in smaller brackets, but weaker the more opponents that are present.
I can't think of a way to balance all abilities across all classes so that some handful of abilities do not continue to be exceptional for a particular number of allies / opponents. We talked in the Enh Sham thread about this a bit as well - Enh survivability is strongest in 1v1, 2v2, and 3v3 scenarios - but in 3v3 where I generally dislike killing Enh shamans - in 5v5 or 10v10 they'd be near the top of my list for kill targets. That's because when you are fighting many opponents, a near-immunity cooldown is way better than a % damage reduction cooldown, while in smaller brackets the opposite is often true (because % reduction cooldowns always have far better uptime ratios than immunity cooldowns).
TL;DR - You have to pick a balance point, 10v10 and 5v5 is no better than 3v3 or 2v2 or 1v1. Blizzard chose 3v3, and given it's halfway through the list - I think it's the right choice. If we balanced around 10v10, what went on in 1v1 scenarios would be wildly unbalanced - far worse than it is (and remember 1v1 doesn't just mean duels, most organic pvp is often 1v1 or 2v2 or the like). If anything, balancing around 1v1 would make more sense - and then nerfing any abilities that scaled too well in other brackets (not that I'm advocating that).
The number of Hardcore PvPers and PvErs in general is going down in the game. 25 raiding guilds are disappearing.. some converting to 10 man and others quitting the game completely. A lot of PvP guilds are starting to disappear as well. When I was playing on Illidan, it was tough to find a RBG group or a pure PvP guild that was still active.
The problem is: Blizzard is taking out any sense of immersion or difficulty left in the game and people enjoy it that way. The game has become a World of Purples experience and that's all anyone cares about. I stopped playing recently but might return depending on how the expansion turns out.
I'm not sure what Blizzard bases their numbers off of anymore. Part of me says they have meaningful data behind all the class changes and the other part of me says they're pulling random numbers out of their ass. The whole list of 5.3 PvP changes perplexes me...
And if it's true that healers are hard to kill (which they are) then in 5.3 in Arenas, they'll be even worse. Just wait until they switch to their 496 PvE healing gear with 65% base resilience and their spell power goes WAY up from where it was due to PvP gear restraining it. I know I lost a ton of Spell Power on my characters when they got PvP geared but with 65% base resilience and the hard hitting nerf to PvP power, what the hell is the point of the PvP gear anymore?
---------- Post added 2013-05-03 at 01:19 AM ----------
Balance around 1v1 and the rest falls in to place. This balance has to be ALL classes against ALL classes. In a protracted fight of equal skilled opponents DPS should be able to wear down a healers mana and CD's. There is nothing more frustrating than bad RBG. Arena's are easy to setup, easy to comunicate and easy to keep doing. It's still really hard to get 2.2k rating where as RBG is much easier and derpy.
Arena is a huge part of the game, especially 3v3 i personally think most people only do RBG is for the increased cap where as the main community of PVP only really enjoy 3v3 (2v2) occasionally random BG's are just for gearing and having fun and well ...random as in its title blizzard needs to concentrate on arena more and keep balancing are 3v3 people who dont like that , PVE'rs stick to what you know best ! keyboard turning and such .
This game should not be balanced around the idiots, bots and noobs that run rampant in the random bgs simply because they are the majority. This is not how pvp currently works, has ever worked or should ever work. Pvp should be balanced around the bleeding edge of competition and the ability to work together to overcome the enemy team in whatever objective. This game additionally should not be balanced around the ridiculousness of aoe spam fests that are rated battle grounds. To be fair, in my own opinion, I don't think rated battlegrounds should have been implemented in the first place due to the very obvious and prominent difference in requirement for balancing that arena's and rated battle grounds have. There needs to be a focus on bleeding edge "endgame" pvp competition and the pvp game needs to be balanced around that. Otherwise there will never be any sort of balance between rated battlegrounds and arenas.
Last edited by Manabomb; 2013-05-03 at 12:49 AM.
6.2 Polygon interview is complete tripe, shameless self-promoting scum self promoting feedback and criticisms about the "No-flying direction" election.