Mount for 100 arena wins/40 RBG wins

[Lucetia]

So according to a tweet from Holinka on the first page there's a new mount (one for horde, one for alliance) coming in 5.4 for PvPers and the criteria for this achievement is:

100 3v3 wins
40 RBG wins

which could of course change before the patch, but apparantly that's what it is right now.

I personally think this is a major leap forward in getting more people into arenas and getting the queues more active again. People of all skill levels will be entering the arena to go for this mount, I'd love to see the number of 3v3 wins raised (or a seperate achievement) to say, 500 or 1000 because 100 is really easy to get in a 6+month season, even for the most casual of players. But still it's a great addition!

There was also another tweet saying it was for a wider range of PvP audience, which 100 arena wins / 40 RBG wins doesn't really fit that category.

It almost sounds like both and if they want a bigger audience for something like that then why not just lower the 75 / 150 RBG win achieve and do it from there instead?

[Deleted]

Unless you've to gladtiator from season 1 to 27b without any interruptions you shouldn't be eligible to get that mount... at all.

100 3vs3 wins might be fast for some of you, for the rest it's 10 weeks of capping their points. But 40 rbg wins is a lot of time, just imagine you regulary only cap via rbg each week, then you'd have your arena wins after 2.5 monts but still 6.5 months of rbg to go 10-20 rbg wins and ten times that amount in arena wins sounds more in line to me for the average player.

edit: or is this 100 arena wins OR 40 rbg?

[Glaziola]

Good luck to warriors getting 40 rbg wins.

Hello Arms warrior here, already done those within a few weeks thanks to Oqueue addon
Still easier than 3vs3 on a dead server.

[Deleted]

Hello Arms warrior here, already done those within a few weeks thanks to Oqueue addon
Still easier than 3vs3 on a dead server.

What...? I thought your kind faced extinction with 5.2...

Check again, are you sure you are not a dk?

[durrtygoodz]

A large percentage would not come close to 100 wins, that is pretty hard to get for casuals since they would tend to get pretty discouraged after a couple of bad losses in a row. It's not a mindless raid boss that does X every Y seconds, I've had seasons when my roommates and I would go 6-0 and then get 3 straight losses and then never do arena again for the season.

So because you have mates that would give up on an achievement so easily, it shouldn't be put in? Come on man. 100 wins is really nothing. And the season will probably be 8 to 10 months, possibly more who knows. Even a very casual player could do 10 wins per week (which is the arena cap!) and still get the mount before the end of season. Which is why it should be raised.

[Rivellana]

Unless you've to gladtiator from season 1 to 27b without any interruptions you shouldn't be eligible to get that mount... at all.

100 3vs3 wins might be fast for some of you, for the rest it's 10 weeks of capping their points. But 40 rbg wins is a lot of time, just imagine you regulary only cap via rbg each week, then you'd have your arena wins after 2.5 monts but still 6.5 months of rbg to go 10-20 rbg wins and ten times that amount in arena wins sounds more in line to me for the average player.

edit: or is this 100 arena wins OR 40 rbg?

I was looking at Holinka's twitter and about five hours ago he made it pretty clear this is for 100 3s arenas wins AND 40 rbg wins.

It's too bad because I was really hoping it was "or", not "and" but I want that horse so bad I will do what I need to to get it. I'm the opposite of most people here though, I love RBGs and do them with my guild and I despise arenas. Finding a 3s team to get that many wins with is going to be the difficult part for me.

[Deleted]

deffo not gonna do RBGs no matter what they do, I think they're stupid -> monk serpent charge to middle of EOTS for flag, ladder full of exploiters etc, not enjoyable for me

Oh well, I don't like the mounts anyway so I don't really care

[lunchbox2042]

I don't see this pulling more people into RBGs to be honest. They really should just accept that there's a certain type of crowd that enjoys them and stop funneling people that don't enjoy it into it.

[Schwert]

It's already "accessible" enough as it is and we already have enough hand-outs for rated PvP (Well - RBG's. Arenas need more.). This is just another - just with a decent time sink attached to it to inflate numbers on both ladders. People who don't want to do RBG's don't get it; Which is fine and dandy in my books as 100 3v3 wins is ridiculously easy.

Also: lol@Whoever said "gl 2 Warriors"; I'm already in line for groups to grind these out and I only play arms. Low MMR is hard.
The official arena forums are already planning on playing games at low MMR with each other just to grind these out. The only thing this achievement has done for me so far is foster some community - Even people who normally dislike RBG's are pumped to do it with us because it'll be nothing but laughs and giggles.

[Archi]

I don't see how this is going to increase the number of people participating in pvp.If they wanted more people to start liking pvp you would get to choose what to participate in. If this achievement was 100 wins or 40 rbgs, numbers would go up, and possibly even stay up because other people might help others. By adding in an arena and rbg requirement, all the devs are doing is pushing people further away from pvp.

How long "We need high rated players for this bg, but i have no wins myself"? This doesn't seem like a good way to get people to participate. How about 300 arena wins or 50 rbgs? If we have people participating in arena, they get more gear and feel more comfortable in a PVP setting. Seems win/win to me. The arena crowd may not be the rbg crowd and vice versa

I dont know about anyone else, but rbgs feel way worse than a few arena wins time wise. 10 arenas can be done before one rbg

[SDMF]

As much as I love that mount, there's no way in hell I'm doing rated battlegrounds. Too bad for me I guess.

[GrieverXIII]

There was also another tweet saying it was for a wider range of PvP audience, which 100 arena wins / 40 RBG wins doesn't really fit that category.

It almost sounds like both and if they want a bigger audience for something like that then why not just lower the 75 / 150 RBG win achieve and do it from there instead?

Bigger audience = including the arena crowd. They also didn't put any rating (therefore, skill) requirement, meaning everyone and their dog capable of operating a computer will eventually get it, even if it means camping the 1100 bracket. If thats not a wide audience...

[Raugnaut]

40 RBG wins in 1 SEASON is plenty of time- grab the Oqueue addon (or just make a group in your virtual realm, with a larger pop pool you should have a ton more ppl interested in RBGs). I can currently knock out about 5 RBG wins a night- thats less then 10 days for RBGs. 20 mins at most for an RBG*40= 800 minutes.

This is, of course, MUCH longer then arenas- The fastest a 3v3 can go is less then a minute after gates open, depending on the lvl of ownage involved (And the max time is now.. 15 minutes was it?)

Of course, assuming that both you AND your opponent are decent and can survive the opening burst from both sides, matchs will last an average of 3-5 mins in 3v3. Thats 300-500 minutes for all arena wins- yes, significantly less then RBGs, and that doesn't count for time to get up groups and various losses.

So, in terms of overall minutes spent for this, I anticipate.. an average of 800 minutes spent in an arena for the 100 matchs, and an average of 1800 minutes spent for the 40 RBG wins, counting time to get up groups/losses.

Hrmm. That IS alot of time for RBG wins, but one can look at it this way- the RBG wins also count for the War Wolf mount, unless things change.

[apepi]

You guys are bitching about 40 rbg wins? I got over 300 just last season.....

[durrtygoodz]

You guys are bitching about 40 rbg wins? I got over 300 just last season.....

There's people bitching over the 100 3v3 as well but i did over 2000 in season 11 =)

[Nicola]

Yeah 3v3 should definitely go up for sure, 100 wins is less than a week for sure. Hell back in TBC/Wrath I'd do 1000+ games a week sometimes, even if we were 50% win/loss for the week that'd still be 500 wins.

Lying is not your strongest point.
Unless you played 24/7 doing at least 6 games per hour, it's not really possible to get 1000+ games a week.

Honestly, I don't see a reason at all to raise the numbers, they are fine as they are right now. Heck, just look at the ladders for 3s at how many teams are sitting on sub-100 wins. If it was for 2s, I'd completely agree that 100 is too little, but for 3s it's fine since afaik most casuals don't even bother with 3s right now.

[durrtygoodz]

Honestly, I don't see a reason at all to raise the numbers, they are fine as they are right now. Heck, just look at the ladders for 3s at how many teams are sitting on sub-100 wins. If it was for 2s, I'd completely agree that 100 is too little, but for 3s it's fine since afaik most casuals don't even bother with 3s right now.

But, a big point of the achieve to to encourage people to do it. Blizzard have said they've been thinking of ways to encourage players of all skill levels to queue up, so this achieve is good. Looking at current ladders doesnt give the best idea of how active people are because there's alot of 3v3 teams that people leave, disband, remake, hop around etc etc. I bet there's plenty of people that have done 100 wins this season but are not in a 100+ win team.

[Deleted]

But, a big point of the achieve to to encourage people to do it. Blizzard have said they've been thinking of ways to encourage players of all skill levels to queue up, so this achieve is good. Looking at current ladders doesnt give the best idea of how active people are because there's alot of 3v3 teams that people leave, disband, remake, hop around etc etc. I bet there's plenty of people that have done 100 wins this season but are not in a 100+ win team.

Surely making the mount attainable is better then?

If people see daunting numbers on the thing, they're probably not going to bother in the first place - "forcing" people to pvp for 100s / 1000s of games isn't going to encourage people to start pvping, it's going to make it a chore.

Making it an achievable goal might get people who wouldn't usually bother pvping to try it out and maybe, y'know, enjoy it - thus play more.

I think there SHOULD be harder to achieve goals, but I don't think they need to be mutually exclusive with smaller and more enticing goals, make it so you've got one achieve for 100 wins, another for 250 or something, you want a constant trail of carrots on a stick, not one carrot at the top of a tower.

[roahn the warlock]

As long as it's one or the other, I'm all for it. If you need both 100 arena wins and 40 RBG wins then there's no way in hell I'll ever get that nor will I ever even try, but if it's one or the other it's pretty good in my eyes.

Yeah, except the 3v3 rule.. that's very restrictive.. why can't I get it for winning 100 2v2 or 5v5 games?

- - - Updated - - -

I was looking at Holinka's twitter and about five hours ago he made it pretty clear this is for 100 3s arenas wins AND 40 rbg wins.

It's too bad because I was really hoping it was "or", not "and" but I want that horse so bad I will do what I need to to get it. I'm the opposite of most people here though, I love RBGs and do them with my guild and I despise arenas. Finding a 3s team to get that many wins with is going to be the difficult part for me.

The AND thing seems stupid... it might be a missclick.. because it's very hard for a "Wide range" to get into rbgs, but easy to get into arena

[Vasilisa]

I'm fine with arenas as I dont need full team of 10 people. But as said already rbs requirement is rather rough. I really hope they'll change and into or. Otherwise I'm affraid I'll be forced to buy a boost (noone of the teams I asked were in need of a monk, or "1700 at least required")