no more qq about imbalance, this is the solution

[glaigas]

It's no doubt that when people are actively thinking of way's to spite blizzard, protest arena, and complain about pvp that something is not right. It is definitely hard to balance arena and there are definitely ways to improve it but on the topic of gladiators and title distribution in general, .5% of the teams seams unfair do to the class imbalance. Rather than give .5% of highest rating, why not give the .5% or even .2% to all classes based on there rating. 2% of the highest rated war, shammy, pally, rogue, lock, dk, preist, mage, hunter, druid all the gladiator title, all the frost wyrms... if there are class imbalances then distribute titles to the best of each class. Yes every class will get gladiator the way it is now, but there should not be more of one class getting the title than any other unless there were more of that class in the battle group that were competing in arena

comments are welcome, what do u guys think.. i posted this on the suggestion forum but this april fools crap is annoying with the added comments from posting there

[Bolts]

I think the problem with this is, what if you get a frostwyrm but your partner doesn't, or visa versa?

[ArtOfShred]

I had thought about this, but it still wouldn't be fair to some of the most unrepresented *specs* in PvP.

Really the odds wouldn't improve at all for specs like Enhancement or Elemental. The number of higher rated Resto Shaman would eat up all the Gladiator titles over other specs, and the same would apply for Holy vs. Ret for Paladins, etc...

[pennance]

That actually sounds like a pretty nice idea that would almost entirely remove class balance from the pvp equation. I say almost because technically if a class is weaker less people will be actively playing them so the .5% druid/warrior number would be pretty slim compared to the .5% pally's. Still it'd be more incentive for the weaker classes to participate.

The only hang up there is this situation. You are x class (where x is any class that's currently weak in arena) and you're on a 3's team with another x class and a y class (where y is the current dominant class). Your team is ranked 2250 and you and your x buddy are thrilled because you are pretty likely to get your mount while your y teammate is pissed because he is not. He'll have to get a much higer rating to get the same benefit as his own team members. There are plenty of yyy team combinations above you and you can't make anymore headway. What you'd have then would be a clear division where all the y's want to only group with other y's and all the x's have nothing but each other. In an extreme example you'd have only the all y teams on top and the x teams might not even be able to get the gear.

[metsfan]

I saw a suggestion similar to this on the wow forums, the only difference was that it was for comp, not class. So like the top rogue/priest gets glad, top rogue/mage, ect, with a base requirement of 2k rating.

I personally think that would be slightly better, but this is good too.

As for the person who said the thing about specs, you are defined by your class, not your spec. If you want to change your spec, it only costs you 50g, if you want to change your class you have to level from 1-80. Asking for all specs to be viable as never going to happen, the only thing you can do is base it on class, since in your situation, any shaman is capable of speccing resto quite easily.

[Lark]

Your team gets gladiator.

Stressing the individual like this just spreads dissension between teams. You ever been on a team where one person didn't play enough to get gladiator? It's probably the nastiest situation you can put a group of people into in WoW. Much better to spend time seriously addressing balance and approaching season six with a "it will be fair by the end" attitude as opposed to worrying about where gladiator mounts go.

It's not a bad idea if your concern is where mounts go, I guess. Me, I'd kinda like to be able to play the classes and spec I enjoy in arena rather than the current ... thing.