Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst
1
2
3
4
LastLast
  1. #41
    Old God PizzaSHARK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    10,773
    Quote Originally Posted by Vampiroth View Post
    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?
    Rated, not random.

    Additionally, who cares about eSports in WoW? It's an RPG; an RPG will always inherently be less balanced and less demanding on player skill than other options. If you want to flex your e-peen and talk about skill, go play a game like Brood War, Quake, or Street Fighter. The point is that random BGs - the type of gameplay that the vast majority of players experience, and the ONLY type for many of those - are exceptionally frustrating due to 3v3 arena design and balance decisions not scaling well to the 10v10 or 15v15 format. Designing and balancing around rated BGs would eliminate a considerable portion of this frustration simply because the only meaningful difference between a random BG and a rated BG is teamwork and coordination.

    Quote Originally Posted by Yvaelle View Post
    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).
    Who cares about 1v1 scenarios, or other random world PvP? Those situations have always been determined by numbers more than anything else - class balance is irrelevant when you're outnumbered five to one. So why would you even use it as a design goal? Hell, I've played on PvP servers the entire time I've played WoW and even in no-flying zones, people generally just ignore each other unless a quest requires them to fight. I see people on both sides doing the PvP Isle dailies and people just ride on by and maybe wave at them. Who knows why? I know I don't pick fights because when I play WoW, I have a limited amount of time to do what I want to do and I don't feel like having 15 minutes of that time squandered by some asshole with a need to show me how man-tough he is.

    And the issue with a game like WoW is that design choices made for a duels-in-a-box environment like arena simply don't scale very well at all to RBGs. Melee and ranged classes are equally effective in arenas, where maps are small and there are many LOS objects for melee to use to avoid getting stuck in the open, but this doesn't apply to BGs on the whole - maps are enormous, and while there may be some LOS objects around key objectives, the majority of the map is wide open, which is why ranged classes dominate while melee classes are weaker to some degree.

    Additionally, dying in arena is extremely bad - you only get one life, so if you die, that can easily mean game over if your surviving teammates can't very quickly kill an enemy player to compensate. In RBGs, it's not quite as bad - dying is still a bad thing, and it can still mean a lost game, but the impact is ultimately lessened.

    Moreover, because you have larger teams, classes do not need to be (and I hate this word) homogenized. You don't need every class to have self-heals, or a disable, or an interrupt, or whatever; you can build a team to cover any weaknesses a teammate might have, while the enemy team can build a team to try and take advantage of any weakness. Essentially you can look back at vanilla, before arena ever became a thing, as a broad-strokes idea of how that works; people still played BGs competitively for rewards, and even though not every class had an interrupt, a disable, self-healing, etc, it still worked. It can still work again, but it would require a shift away from arena and a shift towards rated BGs as the sole design goal.

    The entire point is that, of all players who engage in PvP at all (which is already a small number and has been getting smaller over time; 5.3 may slow the bleed but I don't expect it will stop it entirely), random Battlegrounds are almost always the first and largest amount of PvP they do. Because of the design focus on arena, this results in an exceptionally frustrating experience on top of the required gear grind (which is thankfully being lessened with 5.3), resulting in a LOT of players giving it a try, going "Wow this isn't fun at all," and never touching it again.

    Since Blizzard is still investing resources into balancing and designing PvP, this is bad - it means there's an entire section of the game they're working on that many players won't play because it simply isn't fun. That's bad for business. From a purely financial standpoint, it makes sense to design and balance around the playstyle the most players engage in, and particularly the playstyle the "casual" (another word I hate) audience prefers, since they make up the lion's share of the playerbase.

    Balancing around random BGs would be stupid. But you can balance around rated BGs, and it results in an almost direct translation to random BGs because - again - the major difference between a random BG and a rated BG is just teamwork and coordination, not an entirely different gameplay style.
    http://steamcommunity.com/id/PizzaSHARK
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryan Cailan Ebonheart View Post
    The best you people can do is throw insults and lay your perspective on what a real adult is onto me but I will continue to reject them. And you will try and try again, force me into submission but I will continue to press on.
    MMOC IRC!

  2. #42
    The better question is why hasnt blizzard abandoned rbgs? Seriously, I dont know a single person who actually ENJOYS rbgs, or enjoys them as much as arenas at least. Most people just see them as a gear requirement. Alot of people enjoy random bgs because its alot more easygoing and theres less pressure to be good and balance isnt such a big deal, but if you want to be competitive then arenas is where its at; rbgs dont make you feel accomplished at all tbh.

  3. #43
    Is Blizzard still trying to make arenas an esport?
    Originally Posted by Blizzard Entertainment
    I'm determined to someday make Med'an awesome. (MickyNeilson)
    Originally Posted by Blizzard Entertainment
    ´So.. sorry to bring this up but..you know that .."thing" (Med'an).. is that "thing" cannon still?
    ...as much have some have wished otherwise, yes. (Loreology)

  4. #44
    Bloodsail Admiral
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,146
    Quote Originally Posted by Razorice View Post
    Because Arenas are one of the most fun things to do in the game. They're also challenging.
    Random BG's are mostly run by bots and people who, well, suck.
    I love how on internet forums, what some people think is a proper reply to a cogent argument is a series of personal opinions stated as fact and false slurs.

    I, at least, agree with you OP. I've never found so much as the concept of Arenas remotely interesting; it's basically group duels. Yawn. BGs should be the balance focus, because arena-balanced healers designed to withstand heavy beatings in an arena match where you only die once can severely screw up a BG where they get to come back after 30 seconds or less of downtime after being killed. Since more players participate in BGs, where is the sense in making their gameplay experience less enjoyable for the benefit of the minority who choose to play Arenas?
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    There's nothing wrong with Keynesian theory.

  5. #45
    The Lightbringer Ermahgerd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    3,257
    Quote Originally Posted by PizzaSHARK View Post
    In the sense of using arena data as a factor in balance.

    As far as I'm aware, the vast majority of PvP that takes place in WoW is in random BGs - since this is where the most people play, this should be the focus for your game. I'm sure the hardcore arena players will start screaming at me now, but they need to accept that they're an increasingly small niche, and I don't see that changing.

    To me, this means that rated Battlegrounds should be where Blizzard pulls the majority of their data from for use in making balance decisions; arena does not translate well to the random Battleground environment, while rated Battlegrounds do.

    A lot of the things that make people get frustrated with PvP (which, again, for most people is random BGs) exist solely because of the emphasis placed on 3v3 arena as a balancing factor. The first things that come to mind are healers being extremely difficult to kill, and the sheer amount of disables in the game. Kills in arena games are often made through forcing cooldowns with disables, and then doing it again once DR timers have reset to secure the kill. Likewise, healers in arenas must be very hard to kill, otherwise there would be little reason to bring a healer along.

    Because BGs allow unlimited respawns and include more players (which also means more classes available), this results in a lot of potential silliness that can't really go away unless they want to also separate arenas and BGs... which would require a lot of work and be pretty dumb.

    So, again - why are Blizzard using 3v3 arena as a balance focus when, since the vast majority of players just play random BGs and little else, rated BGs are a much more relevant source to draw data from?
    Balancing around 15v15 is a gazillion times harder than balancing around 3v3. Another problem with balancing around 10v10/15v15 is that people will start QQing even more about their classes seeing as instead of being balanced around a smaller bracket, they're balanced around massive battles. Thus making certain things feel weak in a 1v1 (which many people also play).

    Arena is also a bit like heroic raiding. You do LFR and normal raids to get better at raiding in order to do heroics, same is with arenas where you instead do random bgs to get gear and get to know your class and arena to test out your true skills.

  6. #46
    Bloodsail Admiral nerdjames's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,097
    Quote Originally Posted by Inahu View Post
    I love how on internet forums, what some people think is a proper reply to a cogent argument is a series of personal opinions stated as fact and false slurs.

    I, at least, agree with you OP. I've never found so much as the concept of Arenas remotely interesting; it's basically group duels. Yawn. BGs should be the balance focus, because arena-balanced healers designed to withstand heavy beatings in an arena match where you only die once can severely screw up a BG where they get to come back after 30 seconds or less of downtime after being killed. Since more players participate in BGs, where is the sense in making their gameplay experience less enjoyable for the benefit of the minority who choose to play Arenas?
    I don't understand the premise here. How does balancing around arenas make battlegrounds less enjoyable? Let me put it this way: arenas are a small, closed, one-dimensional activity. How do you propose to use a largescale mess and all the extra variables that come with it as a more precise measuring stick for balance?

    For the record--since it seems to be the primary complaint in this thread--healers aren't particularly hard to kill. Their defensive cooldowns are generally comparable to those of any damage-dealer. In an arena game, pretty much any two damage-dealers can kill a healer if they aren't peeled or controlled to some degree. In a battleground not only do you have far more than two people available to zerg down a healer, but that healer has no pillar to hump in self-defense. If by some offchance he's at a pillar-like object, the odds are about 90% that you can just shoot spells right though it anyway. I don't know why people think healers should fall over and die if you're skilled enough to notice them, but that's not how this game works.

    Edit: I'd like to add that arena players aren't a small minority that choose to play a generally unliked aspect of the game. Almost all competitive/serious pvpers in this game are arena players. Longterm random BG heroes are people that either lack the drive or ability to find partners for competitive play, or simply enjoy preying on people that are less skilled or geared. If battlegrounds were legitimately entertaining in their own right, you'd find more people running RBGs (since they're the same thing but with competent & geared opponents). As it is, almost all RBG players are arena players that actually despise doing it but endure it to get geared faster.
    Last edited by nerdjames; 2013-05-03 at 02:08 AM.

  7. #47
    agree with you fully how can you balance complete random match ups aswell it can't work!

  8. #48
    High Overlord Captain Falkan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    A stage from Mario Smash Bros.
    Posts
    172
    In compilation of all arguments stated, I believe this thread hit the nail right on the head.
    Why do we only travel outwards in space? Lets try going up or down.

    Bring back Warcraft, for Chen's sake.

  9. #49
    Moderator Yvaelle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada
    Posts
    4,560
    Putting aside that I think balancing around 10v10 is a bad idea still.

    How would you balance around random battlegrounds? What would you change? In my experience, all 10v10 and 15v15 battlegrounds gets decided by the presence of 2-3 2200+ players, who do the overhwhelming majority of killing / healing / cc'ing / capping - in random battlegrounds their class or gear often doesn't even matter, it's their experience that is the deciding factor.

    In Rated PvP - this is never an issue, because they get sorted by an amalgamation of skill / gear / team composition / coordination (via the MMR system). You can balance around 10v10 Rated PvP - you can't balance around wildly different gear, skill, team composition and coordination in random battlegrounds. A single good druid can win almost any non-rated Warsong Gulch or Twin Peaks, a single good Frost mage can win almost any Strand of the Ancients or Silvershard Mines. I've gone 54:0 in Kotmogu before in a random queue (no teammates, no vent, no other particularly good players on my team), by getting an orb and berserking and landing some really solid Halo's - it was slaughter.

    In 3v3 and 10v10 you can identify imbalance by looking at what the top teams are doing and what is making them so effective: rated PvP self-identifies imbalance, because players plan around and abuse imbalance to gain an advantage. In random battlegrounds - the team is not deciding what classes they bring (hence random) they aren't in skype, they don't have the same level of gear or skill. If we wanted to balance around rated battlegrounds, we could look at things like Gorefiends->Solar Beam->Ursols Vortex and decide if that's synergy or imbalance - you can't do that with random battlegrounds. You can't do it because a) team composition is random, and b) things which appear overpowered to non-competitive players have counters that competitive players know and use.
    Youtube ~ Yvaelle ~ Twitter

  10. #50
    Bloodsail Admiral
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,146
    Quote Originally Posted by asb View Post
    I don't understand the premise here. How does balancing around arenas make battlegrounds less enjoyable? Let me put it this way: arenas are a small, closed, one-dimensional activity. How do you propose to use a largescale mess and all the extra variables that come with it as a more precise measuring stick for balance?

    For the record--since it seems to be the primary complaint in this thread--healers aren't particularly hard to kill. Their defensive cooldowns are generally comparable to those of any damage-dealer. In an arena game, pretty much any two damage-dealers can kill a healer if they aren't peeled or controlled to some degree. In a battleground not only do you have far more than two people available to zerg down a healer, but that healer has no pillar to hump in self-defense. If by some offchance he's at a pillar-like object, the odds are about 90% that you can just shoot spells right though it anyway. I don't know why people think healers should fall over and die if you're skilled enough to notice them, but that's not how this game works.
    Large-scale mess is hyperbolic. But what I'm saying is, because things are balanced now around 3v3 arena, which has a different set of rules than BGs, roles are being skewed in a way that is detrimental to players' experience. Healers have too much survivability in BGs, and your suggestion that one can simply summon a zerg of DPS to burst down a healer in a random BG is laughably naive to the reality of co-operation in random BGs. I'm not saying healers should be easy to kill, but say you're in WSG and there is an FC and a healer, and you're a DPS with another DPS going to take out the FC. One of you focusing on the healer and one on the FC should be able to OOM him from the pressure of trying to keep himself and an FC up, and this shouldn't take longer than 60 seconds (BG engagements rarely last longer than this). After all, it's not over once the healer is OOM and dies - 30 seconds or less and he's back, in which time the FC and his team have a number of options to keep the flag in play.

    As for DPS, I never enjoyed the prospect of CC-filled fights. I'd rather go hand-to-hand with someone and come out on top simply because I moved better, timed my abilities better, etc. Currently, it's like, whoever gets off the first in their suite of CC has a huge advantage over the other player, CC has become more a means of facilitating offence rather than defensive in its utility. If healers were toned down, there would be less need for every class and spec to have multiple methods of CCing opponents, which I think would lead to more interesting engagements. Basically, what I'd like to see here is the decision about when and how to use CC to be more important. It shouldn't be something you use to go gangbusters on your disabled opponent, but something you use to ensure they can't wipe you out. Melee classes should therefore be more susceptible to magic sources of damage, but have interrupts and silences to counter that. Rogues or feral druids should utilise short-term stuns and vanish abilities to reposition themselves to limit incoming damage from opponents. Casters should have snares and fears to maintain a distance with melee classes, from whom they would be more susceptible to damage. Contests between melee vs melee, or caster vs caster, would ideally come down to how each played their character. A Frost Mage might burst down an Affliction Warlock, but he wouldn't make it 5 steps before he died from dots.

    Some of these things are reminiscent of my experience of PvP during BC and WotLK, with tweaks here and there. It all boils down to the basis that instead of making everyone capable of countering anything, as is required due to a fewer number of participants in arena and thus a greater emphasis on what each player's class/spec brings to the group, it would be easier to balance if different roles had different strengths and weaknesses and different toolsets. I think it'd also encourage players to try out more different playstyles in PvP.
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    There's nothing wrong with Keynesian theory.

  11. #51
    Old God PizzaSHARK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    10,773
    [QUOTE=Yvaelle;21006798]How would you balance around random battlegrounds?[quote]

    Why are people not reading what I write? RATED battlegrounds, not random. Rated! You would be using rated BGs as the design focus for any balance changes being made. This would result in a less frustrating experience in random BGs because the game would be getting designed around an identical playstyle, rather than something wholly different that's then tried to be scaled up.

    It's also worth noting that I don't really give a tin shit about balance - I care about fun, and BGs are often exceptionally frustrating if you aren't one of the classes or specs that fare well in them (as you mentioned, an spriest is a god in an arena but considerably less strong in a BG, due to the mechanics of their skills.)

    WoW isn't an eSport; I don't care about precise balance. I just care about fun, and right now random BGs aren't fun, and Blizzard's mentions about PvP participation reflects this.
    http://steamcommunity.com/id/PizzaSHARK
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryan Cailan Ebonheart View Post
    The best you people can do is throw insults and lay your perspective on what a real adult is onto me but I will continue to reject them. And you will try and try again, force me into submission but I will continue to press on.
    MMOC IRC!

  12. #52
    We don't need to "abandon" arenas; However the system needs to be looked at.

    The game has /always/ been unbalanced yet participation was extremely high back in BC and WoTLK;
    The reason I believe arenas are dead now is because nobody gets anything out of doing them. It's Gladiator or bust. (Mount - Because a lot of people don't care too much about titles.)

    We're never going to see arenas as active as they were back in the day but if everything weren't so exclusive people would most likely want to play.
    It's just not fun to have to sit there and push rating and get nothing in return for your efforts. There's not enough people playing and everything's FoTM. Glad spots are also dwindling to non-existent levels on most BG's.

    I'm not going to lie; I've been having the most fun in this game spamming random battlegrounds with friends.
    I had fun doing my first miniature rating push in arenas but there were just so few people queueing it made it hard to find anything but godcomp and RMP.
    There's nothing fun about having to go up against such overpowered garbage and never queue into anything else.

    If they turned arenas more casual we'd probably see some life breathed into them but right now it's only for a small miniscule percentage of the population; There's no reason to play outside for fun and it's rarely fun.

    Balance focus is moot; MMORPG's will never be balanced. There's just too much in them to make it even.
    At least make it fun to play.

    -- Signature by /the/ Crazytaco --

  13. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by PizzaSHARK View Post

    Why are people not reading what I write? RATED battlegrounds, not random. Rated! You would be using rated BGs as the design focus for any balance changes being made. This would result in a less frustrating experience in random BGs because the game would be getting designed around an identical playstyle, rather than something wholly different that's then tried to be scaled up.
    Except class balance has very little to do with random bgs. Even if the dumped arenas and balanced classes around rbgs it wouldnt change anything in randoms, the side with the more gear/better players will win regardless. I dont see the frustrating experience in random bgs that you speak of except lack of gear which has nothing to do with class balance. My warrior who is crap in rbgs steamrolls groups of people in bgs, balancing the game around rbgs wont change my ability to singlehandedly kill like 4 players in 10 seconds since my gear is so good.

  14. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by Schwert View Post
    We don't need to "abandon" arenas; However the system needs to be looked at.

    The game has /always/ been unbalanced yet participation was extremely high back in BC and WoTLK;
    The reason I believe arenas are dead now is because nobody gets anything out of doing them. It's Gladiator or bust. (Mount - Because a lot of people don't care too much about titles.)

    We're never going to see arenas as active as they were back in the day but if everything weren't so exclusive people would most likely want to play.
    It's just not fun to have to sit there and push rating and get nothing in return for your efforts. There's not enough people playing and everything's FoTM. Glad spots are also dwindling to non-existent levels on most BG's.

    I'm not going to lie; I've been having the most fun in this game spamming random battlegrounds with friends.
    I had fun doing my first miniature rating push in arenas but there were just so few people queueing it made it hard to find anything but godcomp and RMP.
    There's nothing fun about having to go up against such overpowered garbage and never queue into anything else.

    If they turned arenas more casual we'd probably see some life breathed into them but right now it's only for a small miniscule percentage of the population; There's no reason to play outside for fun and it's rarely fun.

    Balance focus is moot; MMORPG's will never be balanced. There's just too much in them to make it even.
    At least make it fun to play.
    Blizz has repeatedly said PVP isnt a issue they are going to dump massive resources into. Look on youtube and you can actually hear dev's state this. Look up, "Shut up PVP guy" and many many others where a developer will come straight out and say they are geared for PVE and pvp is an after thought.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Or8q02BQFLY

    Watch the video and there are a lot others where people who control the content in the game, state that PVE will always rule the game. I dont understand why people that thinkPVP is king, still play wow, arent there pvp games out there?
    Last edited by isadorr; 2013-05-03 at 06:03 AM.

  15. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by Kyuubi87 View Post
    3v3 and 5v5 is fun, but I don't see why Blizzard haven't abandoned 2v2 because of the imbalance that occur in it.
    2v2 CAN and WAS pretty balanced. They flat out don't want to balance it though. Either way they need to bring skirmishes back. Removing them and their excuse for it is the biggest bullshit I've seen in the history of this game.

    ---------- Post added 2013-05-03 at 06:28 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by isadorr View Post
    Watch the video and there are a lot others where people who control the content in the game, state that PVE will always rule the game. I dont understand why people that thinkPVP is king, still play wow, arent there pvp games out there?
    Sadly Blizzard is still the most fleshed and smooth PvP experience you can have in an MMO bar none.
    Quote Originally Posted by High Overlord Saurfang
    "I am he who watches they. I am the fist of retribution. That which does quell the recalcitrant. Dare you defy the Warchief? Dare you face my merciless judgement?"
    i7-860 @2.8GHz | Radeon HD 7770 | 8GB DDR3-1333MHz | Corsair CX 430W |

  16. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by isadorr View Post
    Blizz has repeatedly said PVP isnt a issue they are going to dump massive resources into. Look on youtube and you can actually hear dev's state this. Look up, "Shut up PVP guy" and many many others where a developer will come straight out and say they are geared for PVE and pvp is an after thought.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Or8q02BQFLY

    Watch the video and there are a lot others where people who control the content in the game, state that PVE will always rule the game. I dont understand why people that thinkPVP is king, still play wow, arent there pvp games out there?
    Which is why they put pretty much the most exclusive reward in the game on it still?
    (Which is only this exclusive now because people aren't playing. Percentage based rewards are stupid in MMO's - As well as ladder play because of these issues.)

    They need to care or change how the reward is given out.
    Besides; WoW's the most popular PvP MMORPG out there - Might as well take advantage of it.

    -- Signature by /the/ Crazytaco --

  17. #57
    Dreadlord Kyuubi87's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    965
    Quote Originally Posted by Flaks View Post
    2v2 CAN and WAS pretty balanced. They flat out don't want to balance it though. Either way they need to bring skirmishes back. Removing them and their excuse for it is the biggest bullshit I've seen in the history of this game.[COLOR="red"]
    Aye I know, I think I remember reading something about Blizzard saying that, which is kinda bad since they are inclined to keep 2v2.
    I was actually thinking about skirmishes they other day and felt it was a shame they removed them. Even for practise reasons it was a fun thing to do with a couple of friends.

  18. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by PizzaSHARK View Post
    So?



    No, it doesn't. I mean, sure, it has tournaments, but the community isn't huge - especially not compared to the many, many more people who don't give a crap about "competitive PvP" (fucking lol) and just queue for a few BGs between raids or to have a little fun. There's no point in balancing the game around a comparative handful of (extremely vocal) players when the majority of the playerbase plays a gamemode that's at best tangentially related to it.



    ... Because PvP is designed and balanced around arenas. Which is the point of the thread.
    You really must be trolling... this game has gone worse and worse ever since those "casual" players came on.... And unless you get a 200-0 score in those random fun bgs you do, as I assume you don't... Well until then you don't have a single right to say anything about competetive PvP. This post must be the biggest trol I've ever seen.

  19. #59
    The problem is if you balance around rated BG's, arena goes to pot, and from what I've read rated BG's have an even stricter player composition than arena (for competiative play) Plus balancing around 10v10/15v15 would be a whole lot harder than around 3v3.

    Not to mention the reason randoms are annoying to new players is the gear disadvantage, not what things are balanced around. New players die in seconds due to lack of resiliance (which blizzard are somewhat trying to address in 5.3) if pvp was balanced around rated BG's the difference in randoms would still be gear based and who's playing, a small group of 2200+ MMR players will make all the difference, as will number of healers - was always fun doing WSG back in TBC and the side that won was the side with the most resto druids...

  20. #60
    It'd be really nice if they could understand the concept of; "Rock - Paper - Scissors" - But with maybe a couple extra things added into the mix.

    Balancing around 3v3, 5v5 or 10v10 doesn't work when some things are just drastically better than everything else and nothing counters.
    (Mage to Warrior - Warrior to Rogue - Rogue to Druid - Something along those lines.)
    At least a basic attempt at it might help.

    -- Signature by /the/ Crazytaco --

Posting Permissions

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