Page 1 of 2
1
2
LastLast
  1. #1

    Time to re-balance PvP around 2v2?

    Okay, let's just admit, WoW is not an E-sport. 3v3 has next to no real following. The 2v2 arena scene seems to be fairly popular on Streams, class videos, pvp guides, not to mention is the most commonly played format by far. People play 2v2 for Conquest caps, for practice, for passing time, for recognition and most importantly for FUN. Not to mention when it comes to watching it, 2v2 seems much less of a clusterfuck then 3v3.

    While 3v3 seems to cumbersome, there aren't any real honest to god rewards/incentives, and healing in PvP seems to be balanced around the output in 3v3, which completely breaks 2v2, and makes 1v1 utter FotM around what can kill healing hybrids and healers.

    5v5 seems to be an utterly dead bracket.

    Would you say that it is time to start balancing things around 2v2, by first toning down healing, then gutting CC and balancing damage around that, so the pvp meta game will once again be about meaningful choices rather then FotM and Zerg?
    Quote Originally Posted by Mooneye View Post
    Sexual assault is not always rape.
    *slowclap*
    Quote Originally Posted by Mooneye View Post
    Woman rapes a guy, gives birth to child and has custody of the child.
    I don't see why you should take the child from the woman unless she abuses it.

  2. #2
    I wish they would. Healers are god-mode in 2s, and for what?

  3. #3
    Wait what, people play 2s for fun? After capping 2 characters today in 2s I wanted to suicide and went 3s instead for the rest of my characters, facing a feral / dk healer in2s just makes me want to leave instantly

  4. #4
    2s take less skill than 3s so I think it would be moving toward a more "casual" change lol.

    Although it will for sure be more convenient logistically for finding effective partners.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Blueobelisk View Post
    2s take less skill than 3s so I think it would be moving toward a more "casual" change lol.

    Although it will for sure be more convenient logistically for finding effective partners.
    Starcraft 2 in 2v2 would possibly more hardcore and cooler, considering the required coordination and logistics and the posibilites related to resource sharing and all that. Yet it doesn't mean it is overall a better format, and its current preferred 1v1 format also allows for better balance.

    What I am saying is 2v2 doesn't necessarily means less skill or lower difficulty, it all depends on how you balance it. But by investing in 2v2 over 3v3 you win in many other areas, such as larger player base, more viable classes, a more watchable game, also you could fix all the other things 3v3 unbalances such mass pvp and 1v1 to a certain degree.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mooneye View Post
    Sexual assault is not always rape.
    *slowclap*
    Quote Originally Posted by Mooneye View Post
    Woman rapes a guy, gives birth to child and has custody of the child.
    I don't see why you should take the child from the woman unless she abuses it.

  6. #6
    The Patient
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    London
    Posts
    274
    Quote Originally Posted by Blueobelisk View Post
    2s take less skill than 3s so I think it would be moving toward a more "casual" change lol.

    Although it will for sure be more convenient logistically for finding effective partners.
    I agree and at the same time disagree.

    3s requires only a mediocre amount of skill up until, as long as you have good team communication, i would say around 2.1-2.2k(battle group dependant). So yeah skill in sense of co-ordination but you have far more leeway for yourself or partners to make mistakes since one of you is generally there to peel/heal/off heal/cc when your team is in trouble.

    In 2s that is not the case, at high rating if one of you is bad then it shows exponentially more since you cannot rely on your partner when the shit hits the fan since the shit only hits the fan when cc gets thrown out and you need to use maximum skill/class knowledge to survive/regain the advantage.

    The only thing carrying you through is your own skill. Look at the 2v2 ladders for evidence of this. Comps that ppl say should not be viable are 2k+

    So yeah healing is awesome, but damage is pretty insane too so actually double dps is good to run. But not because you can Zerg a tgt but because you have to make the opponents use CDs. Then cc and god forbid switch targets!!!!! I play healer/dps and the hardest teams we face are good double dps teams since if they kill us it's down to great co-ordination and team play. Against dps/healer above 1900 that takes skill. So I'm like "hey np that was a good team", well played if they win. All other double dps is just farm.

    Like the OP said wow is now not a esport let's balance around the most pop bracket but on top of that blizz now has battle fatigue so the can individually adjust brackets according to how many players are in said instance. Here's hoping they actually use that tech to make pvp a better place :-)

  7. #7
    They could easily change the battle fatigue/base resilliance for each bracket so they wouldnt have to balance around any bracket specially.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Ranaas View Post
    They could easily change the battle fatigue/base resilliance for each bracket so they wouldnt have to balance around any bracket specially.
    But the problem with 2v2 is not healing or damage, it is the absurd CC that some comps are capable of putting out. The reason Disc is so popular is because of its ability to do a lot of CC on it's own and then add in cyclone from ferals, ferals ability to stick to targets and treant bash and you ahve a nightmare comp. Same thing for hunter/priest. DK/priest wins because of the amount of pressure DK can put out while the priest is CCing.

    2v2 is a cesspool because it will always be ruled by two classes that have either tons of damage, tons of CC or some mix of both.

  9. #9
    I don't think balancing around 2v2, 3v3, or what-have-you is necessarily the issue. It seems to me the issue is that damage and healing is balanced for PVE and it doesn't translate well into PVP without a superficial method of reducing it against other players.

    Considering the possibility of a stat squish happening next expansion, I think it's about time they remove Resilience completely. As I said, it's a gimmicky stat used only to keep grossly imbalanced damage and healing in check.

    With that in mind, I believe the game would be better served by balancing around PVP (as a whole) first and PVE second. Getting player health pools in line with the amount of damage and healing they're designed to be capable of dishing out should be priority #1 for Blizzard in the next expansion. (For example, 500k health pools pitted against 200k sustained DPS like we have now is ridiculous.) Start looking at PVE tuning only after players have more reasonable amounts of health relative to how much damage/healing they're supposed to be doing. Additionally, I think we'd start to see players not relying so much on CC with a change like this.

    With Resilience gone, maybe PVP'ers could stop being treated like "second-class citizens" and, instead, we could start seeing more fun PVP systems in place for them to be involved with. They really need something unique that separates them from PVE'ers and maintains the necessary "skill > gear" mantra . I've posted my ideas on the official forums, so I'll just briefly summarize my idea for one such system here without an accompanying novel. I think Spell Penetration, Armor Penetration, Defense, and magic resistances could be redesigned and woven together into a pretty cool system that is, at least to me, way more interesting than gear scaling and a stat you have very little control over.

    For full disclosure, I only casually participate in PVP.
    Last edited by BFGrid; 2013-09-10 at 04:37 AM.

  10. #10
    High Overlord dunedains's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Milan
    Posts
    130
    Pvp is not balanced for 1v1, 2v2, world pvp, and BG... Sometimes i ask myself why i pay for this game

  11. #11
    Epic! Naztrak's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Nagrand Arena
    Posts
    1,532
    3v3 is the way to go, 2s are for cap anyways and provide less possible actions then 3. I would rather have the cc fixed then to have the game dumbed down to 2s-because thats what they are, dumbed 3s. There is no room for skill in playing dk/disc, but pair it with a hunter and even with one of the most mongo comps the strategical possibilities are far beyond 2s.
    PvE is a minigame // Rerolled from affly to spriest after 8 years, thx pandaland changes

  12. #12
    Ive always enjoyed 2s over 3s.

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Redlikemyrage View Post
    I wish they would. Healers are god-mode in 2s, and for what?
    So they can play competitively in 3vs3 and 5vs5 which are the main brackets Blizzard focuses most balancing on.

  14. #14
    I would love to see that happening. Not everyone has time to coordinate arenas with 2 other people so this will encourage more people to PvP more.

    And this can probably happen while keeping 3v3 fully balanced (by changing battle fatigue and resilience). We don't need to have 2s fine tuned, just broadly balanced so that healers are killable.

  15. #15
    I don't want to see balancing around 2v2. But I would like them to change 5v5 to 4v4. The damage in 5s is absurd.

  16. #16
    I would love to see the game balanced for 2s. It requires less logistics to be able to play.
    Quote Originally Posted by meathead View Post
    The problem is warriors are not easy to kill like we were in cata and people are mad at that
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghostcrawler
    Brian may answer differently, but I would say mages are hard to counter for average players but easy for great players.

  17. #17
    Hope this won't happen. Sure 2v2 is good for fast cap, but a the same time complete dogshit for ladder play where most specs aren't viable past 2.2K. At least in 3v3 every spec can compete and most classes require more though process then 2v2. Also healing is fine, even in 2v2. If you don't have dmg or control to counter healer in 2v2 then you're playing wrong setup, underpowered spec or playing your class bad.

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Kreeshak View Post
    I would love to see the game balanced for 2s. It requires less logistics to be able to play.
    If you want 2v2s to work and I'm guessing you want to include healers in the bracket then you HAVE to make it so any dps spec is able to kill a healer on their own. If you were to do that then yes you may have a slightly better balanced 2v2 bracket but then you have extreme balancing problems in 3v3 and 5v5 BGs ECT. Healers become useless and in a game where the majority of player prefer not to heal you effectively make healers pointless.

  19. #19
    The Lightbringer Puffler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    England
    Posts
    3,056
    Keep balance around 3v3 and put glad titles back into 2s ?

    Everyone is happy.

  20. #20
    How do you guys feel about disallowing healer and tank specs in 2v2 and giving out titles? Seems 2v2 would be reasonably balanced with a variety of comps if healers/tanks were not allowed. I think true dps comps could take down hybrid comps. I imagine there would be a lot of boomkin/ele, ret/ww, etc kind of comps where both can heal, but I think something like rogue/mage or rogue/hunter, or lock/hunter could take the teams down. Would be fun, perhaps a renaissance of pvp getting healers to play dps specs and making 2v2 more appealing overall with lower game times and less disc/X at higher ratings.

Posting Permissions

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