Arena in gw2

[vizzle]

If that was the case, games like Counter-Strike, Halo, and RTS should have been complete failures when they came out.

Last time I checked, they still go strong even without rewards systems that RPG's have.

The thing about rewards is that it rewards one of two things: participation, or success. When you have this type of system for PvE, success is marginal to what you perceive is a victory. for some folks, beating that boss is a victory, others beating the entire dungeon is.

However, PvP is a different element entirely. that is because your not fighting an NPC, your fighting another human being, and when you reward people for success, you tend to alienate those who were defeated even more than what defeat would have been if there was no reward system in place.

Now defeat means more than just losing, it means you lost your reward as well. This type of reward system inevitably promotes a have/have-not personality amongst gamers, and they tend to be VERY violent and arrogant in their views on the other side.

I would rather the game be about having fun, and not comparing what I have to someone else. <--- that is why I say Arena killed WoW communities, because it divided them amongst those types of lines, you never saw that kind of hate between people on the same server in Vanilla, you would say "cool! he got Grand Marshall, I can get that too if i participate long enough" whereas after arena, you got "Lol, this guy doesn't have 1800 rating/ challenger/arena master, he must suck" or "That guy is a douche, he has Arena Master... probably bought it too".

Rewarding someone for participation is fine, but rewarding people for succeeding against others in PvP creates a harmful playerbase.

EDIT: and yes, I know GW2 has a rated system, however, it does not reward people to such an extent from what we know so far.

You don't have to be a part of the arena community if you don't want to be. People aren't as childish as you make them to be, sure some of them are, but not the majority. You're getting the worst of the worst and making it as the norm, and that's just wrong.

And again, no one is forcing you to interact with those people. I can guarantee you that there will be the "PvP crowd" in this game, because of all the PvP promises it has. The game ALREADY has tournaments. The only thing "arena" would bring is a different style of match, which won't change the community all that much from what it already will be.

People are overreacting. As usual.

[Lothaeryn]

You don't have to be a part of the arena community if you don't want to be. People aren't as childish as you make them to be, sure some of them are, but not the majority. You're getting the worst of the worst and making it as the norm, and that's just wrong.

And again, no one is forcing you to interact with those people. I can guarantee you that there will be the "PvP crowd" in this game, because of all the PvP promises it has. The game ALREADY has tournaments. The only thing "arena" would bring is a different style of match, which won't change the community all that much from what it already will be.

People are overreacting. As usual.

The key difference: GW2 does not have scaling armor and weapons every season... That alone is why I wont mind those people.

If you bring the carrot back in with rewarding people for being at the top when the season ends, you created the same problem WoW had. The problem with WoW arena was success or failure impeded your progression towards the top, if you lost, you didn't get your points to get gear, and that made an artificial ceiling for everyone who wasn't a FotM comp.

At least since there are no gear discrepancies, I can actually beat people based on my skill, and not because I am playing the Wrong spec and am possibly undergeared compared to my opponent. Now the only thing that could impede me is if a certain profession isnt tweaked properly, and that can easily be fixed using Arenanet's policy.

And one other thing, Arena WAS 100% NECESSARY IF YOU WANTED TO BE COMPETITIVE <--- so that means if you wanted to PvP, you either had to be FoTM, or be stuck at the bottom of the barrel, and people had the audacity to claim they were skilled for playing something that was not properly balanced.

Rated BG's helped alleviate this issue, but you still have FoTM comps.

[vizzle]

The key difference: GW2 does not have scaling armor and weapons every season... That alone is why I wont mind those people.

If you bring the carrot back in with rewarding people for being at the top when the season ends, you created the same problem WoW had. The problem with WoW arena was success or failure impeded your progression towards the top, if you lost, you didn't get your points to get gear, and that made an artificial ceiling for everyone who wasn't a FotM comp.

At least since there are no gear discrepancies, I can actually beat people based on my skill, and not because I am playing the Wrong spec and am possibly undergeared compared to my opponent. Now the only thing that could impede me is if a certain profession isnt tweaked properly, and that can easily be fixed using Arenanet's policy.

And one other thing, Arena WAS 100% NECESSARY IF YOU WANTED TO BE COMPETITIVE <--- so that means if you wanted to PvP, you either had to be FoTM, or be stuck at the bottom of the barrel, and people had the audacity to claim they were skilled for playing something that was not properly balanced.

Rated BG's helped alleviate this issue, but you still have FoTM comps.

Nobody is talking about gear here. Nobody.

We're talking about deathmatch style-pvp, like arena, with ratings. Not gear.

[Lothaeryn]

Nobody is talking about gear here. Nobody.

We're talking about deathmatch style-pvp, like arena, with ratings. Not gear.

And I was talking about the fact that rewarding an arbitrary game type that heavily depends on which class composition you bring to the table does not promote a healthy PvP environment as it promotes a Have/Have-not mentality. I am not sure how the hell you did not get this from my previous posts.

And again, the fact that Arenanet is strictly looking for balance makes this problem moot, but you will still have those types of people regardless if it is balanced or not if you have that game style to begin with.

[vizzle]

And I was talking about the fact that rewarding an arbitrary game type that heavily depends on which class composition you bring to the table does not promote a healthy PvP environment as it promotes a Have/Have-not mentality. I am not sure how the hell you did not get this from my previous posts.

And again, the fact that Arenanet is strictly looking for balance makes this problem moot, but you will still have those types of people regardless if it is balanced or not if you have that game style to begin with.

Well, considering you're the first person in the thread to even mention gear... no, of course I wasn't thinking about gear in a game where there is no gear progression...

And players can still be rewarded. It doesn't have to be stats, it can be different colored gear, better looking sets, titles. God forbid that anyone has a sense of self-pride in the game, right?

[Lillpapps]

Nobody is talking about gear here. Nobody.

We're talking about deathmatch style-pvp, like arena, with ratings. Not gear.

Read his first post again. He is talking about rewards. Winning gets you rewards other then just the reward of beating the other player / team. This brings in the aspect of "having" to play it to get the rewards and not just logging in to play it for fun.
I understand him completely. I liked arena in WoW. I didnt like however that everyone was on different grounds. I could not just log in and play deathmatch and kill players like I can in FPS or other deathmatch games. I first had to log in and get items to compete. I could not take a break because then I would have worse gear then everyone else. The rewards of winning a deathmatch type match like arena should be the reward of winning.

[vizzle]

Read his first post again. He is talking about rewards. Winning gets you rewards other then just the reward of beating the other player / team. This brings in the aspect of "having" to play it to get the rewards and not just logging in to play it for fun.
I understand him completely. I liked arena in WoW. I didnt like however that everyone was on different grounds. I could not just log in and play deathmatch and kill players like I can in FPS or other deathmatch games. I first had to log in and get items to compete. I could not take a break because then I would have worse gear then everyone else. The rewards of winning a deathmatch type match like arena should be the reward of winning.

You're not going to have this problem in GW2, because there is no gear progression. I'm sure there will still be rewards, (there are already tournaments) and the most those rewards will be is vanity. If that hurts you, then I feel you're a bit too sensitive... because nothing in this game will be about gear progression, but that doesn't mean there won't be prestige.

[Lillpapps]

You're not going to have this problem in GW2, because there is no gear progression. I'm sure there will still be rewards, (there are already tournaments) and the most those rewards will be is vanity. If that hurts you, then I feel you're a bit too sensitive... because nothing in this game will be about gear progression, but that doesn't mean there won't be prestige.

I know, thats the major point why Im excited for GW2.
I replyed to your first post where you talked down to him and said that he was the first person to bring up gear while he actually quoted a person and had a general discussion with a person about rewards.

[Lothaeryn]

Well, considering you're the first person in the thread to even mention gear... no, of course I wasn't thinking about gear in a game where there is no gear progression...

And players can still be rewarded. It doesn't have to be stats, it can be different colored gear, better looking sets, titles. God forbid that anyone has a sense of self-pride in the game, right?

I never said rewards shouldn't be given, I said rewards shouldn't be given for Arena style death match games, as they are completely dependent on uncontrollable variables, whereas an objective based game has a definitive objective and outcome for completing those objectives, and can be balanced more efficiently than having to retune a class every season because a class composition was unbeatable.

And self pride is all fine and dandy, so long as you don't encourage the notion of rubbing it in peoples faces.

[Larynx]

I despise WoW Arena for the very reason that Blizzard took it as the absolute epitome of PVP, and disregarded balance needed elsewhere for the sake of microbalancing around arena. It was this that single-handedly brought about the demise of competitive BG PVP outside of premade groups (i.e. people wanting to win and doing their own thing to help achieve that). This was before rated BG's.

It's for this reason that i hope GW2 doesn't roll with a similar implementation if they absolutely must add arena. It's important that overall balance is favoured rather than balancing around one very small area. It may be a popular area, but it should NOT have such a drastic effect on people who don't wish to participate in that area.

I'd enjoy a non-competitive deathmatch arena. It'd be like the current hot join, but you do it with groups. And you could have brackets from like 1v1, up to 5v5, or something.

It would be totally optional, and it would remove all the issues surrounding flavor of the month comps, and Arenanet wouldn't need to balance it. Of course there would be the issue of god-mode players destroying newbies, and the only way to fix that would be a ranking system... but that would turn it into competitive PvP...

So maybe just do something like the current WoW skirmishes, I think it's called. Where you get your group of 1-5 players, they get their group, and you both choose a map and fight each other in a deathmatch.

[Lothaeryn]

I despise WoW Arena for the very reason that Blizzard took it as the absolute epitome of PVP, and disregarded balance needed elsewhere for the sake of microbalancing around arena. It was this that single-handedly brought about the demise of competitive BG PVP outside of premade groups (i.e. people wanting to win and doing their own thing to help achieve that). This was before rated BG's.

It's for this reason that i hope GW2 doesn't roll with a similar implementation if they absolutely must add arena. It's important that overall balance is favoured rather than balancing around one very small area. It may be a popular area, but it should NOT have such a drastic effect on people who don't wish to participate in that area.

Thank you, this is exactly what I was trying to point out, and why I think Arena shouldn't have rewards attached to it.

[vizzle]

I know, thats the major point why Im excited for GW2.
I replyed to your first post where you talked down to him and said that he was the first person to bring up gear while he actually quoted a person and had a general discussion with a person about rewards.

He was talking about rewards, and then he brought up gear, read the posts again. Gear =/= reward. Not going to reply to someone over semantics again, though.

I never said rewards shouldn't be given, I said rewards shouldn't be given for Arena style death match games, as they are completely dependent on uncontrollable variables, whereas an objective based game has a definitive objective and outcome for completing those objectives, and can be balanced more efficiently than having to retune a class every season because a class composition was unbeatable.

And self pride is all fine and dandy, so long as you don't encourage the notion of rubbing it in peoples faces.

The reason why classes in WoW have to get retuned every season is because of scaling. Since there is no gear in GW2, there will be no scaling, and classes won't have to be retuned so frequently.

as they are completely dependent on uncontrollable variables

What are you talking about? Uncontrollable variables? Do we just want to throw out quasi ambiguous terms to make our points? What uncontrollable variables are there, that couldn't be solved with better play? You mean RNG? If a person crits or not? Considering your team can benefit from RNG as much as the other team, and the fact that you allowed yourself to get in such a crucial position as to let RNG be a factor of your life or death, then you just have to accept that that's part of the game. (Not to mention RNG applies every where, in arena or not, deathmatch or objective)

I can see no reason why GW2 arena won't be miles better than WoW arena.

*No healers to make 45minute games
*It can be 5v5 (I'd prefer it to be), so it won't be very comp based
*There is much more skill involved with dodging, and less latency elements like interrupts
*People aren't pigeon-holed into a role, and can switch what they're doing on the fly

And a game doesn't encourage rubbing it into other people's faces. People do that, not the game.

[Lothaeryn]

He was talking about rewards, and then he brought up gear, read the posts again. Gear =/= reward. Not going to reply to someone over semantics again, though.



The reason why classes in WoW have to get retuned every season is because of scaling. Since there is no gear in GW2, there will be no scaling, and classes won't have to be retuned so frequently.



What are you talking about? Uncontrollable variables? Do we just want to throw out quasi ambiguous terms to make our points? What uncontrollable variables are there, that couldn't be solved with better play? You mean RNG? If a person crits or not? Considering your team can benefit from RNG as much as the other team, and the fact that you allowed yourself to get in such a crucial position as to let RNG be a factor of your life or death, then you just have to accept that that's part of the game. (Not to mention RNG applies every where, in arena or not, deathmatch or objective)

I can see no reason why GW2 arena won't be miles better than WoW arena.

*No healers to make 45minute games
*It can be 5v5 (I'd prefer it to be), so it won't be very comp based
*There is much more skill involved with dodging, and less latency elements like interrupts
*People aren't pigeon-holed into a role, and can switch what they're doing on the fly

And a game doesn't encourage rubbing it into other people's faces. People do that, not the game.

Uncontrollable, as in you can't control what class composition you are going up against, and if you find a composition that can't be beat unless a class gets nerfed, then you can't win.

Objectives are different though, because you win if you complete the objective, and that isn't based on what class comp you are running.

And at this point I really have to ask wtf you are arguing for? We both agree that Arenanet is balancing the game to the point where most problems with variables are dealt with, the only thing I believe would counteract this is a deathmatch style game mode that is heavily dependent on what you bring rather than what you can do.

That's It...

[vizzle]

Uncontrollable, as in you can't control what class composition you are going up against, and if you find a composition that can't be beat unless a class gets nerfed, then you can't win.

Objectives are different though, because you win if you complete the objective, and that isn't based on what class comp you are running.

And at this point I really have to ask wtf you are arguing for? We both agree that Arenanet is balancing the game to the point where most problems with variables are dealt with, the only thing I believe would counteract this is a deathmatch style game mode that is heavily dependent on what you bring rather than what you can do.

That's It...

I'm arguing for an arena, is that not obvious?

I just feel that there won't be many problems with class balance when it's 5v5. Class comps are felt more with smaller groups, i.e. 2v2 and 3v3, while in 5v5 there are so many different possibilities and different set ups, that if your group has a fair spread, you really shouldn't ever be defeated by an equally skilled group solely because you had the wrong class.

If there is a problem with 5v5, if there is a class balance problem that is so glaringly obvious that it affects 5v5 balance, then arena won't be the only thing affected by that. PvE 5man dungeon groups and objective based PvP would be affected too, and that would still have to be fixed by Arenanet.

But a tiny % problem won't be seen in 5v5. Maybe in 2v2, but not in 5v5.

[TheeWhitey]

I despise WoW Arena for the very reason that Blizzard took it as the absolute epitome of PVP, and disregarded balance needed elsewhere for the sake of microbalancing around arena. It was this that single-handedly brought about the demise of competitive BG PVP outside of premade groups (i.e. people wanting to win and doing their own thing to help achieve that). This was before rated BG's.

It's for this reason that i hope GW2 doesn't roll with a similar implementation if they absolutely must add arena. It's important that overall balance is favoured rather than balancing around one very small area. It may be a popular area, but it should NOT have such a drastic effect on people who don't wish to participate in that area.

Arena's in GW2 would be awesome imo, as long as they balance the skills in the game the same way they did in GW1. I'm not sure if this was already brought up in this thread or in others, im too lazy to go through and look myself =p. But for those who never played the original GW, most skills had PVE and PVP versions, which is something that WoW never did but should have done. Having certain skills such as CC's work differently on a player target than they do on an NPC mob was ingenious.

[Lothaeryn]

I'm arguing for an arena, is that not obvious?

I just feel that there won't be many problems with class balance when it's 5v5. Class comps are felt more with smaller groups, i.e. 2v2 and 3v3, while in 5v5 there are so many different possibilities and different set ups, that if your group has a fair spread, you really shouldn't ever be defeated by an equally skilled group solely because you had the wrong class.

If there is a problem with 5v5, if there is a class balance problem that is so glaringly obvious that it affects 5v5 balance, then arena won't be the only thing affected by that. PvE 5man dungeon groups and objective based PvP would be affected too, and that would still have to be fixed by Arenanet.

Then can we agree to disagree? I feel that arena's would ultimately always be affected by class imbalance, call it pessimism from the trashbin WoW has for a PvP system.

[mcbeaty]

i just love arena, never really liked objective based pvp like the conquest in gw2, it feels really repetive.. A death match is always changing with every game you play its always different never the same... I dont care about class balance or the "kind of people" it will attract... Because i just do it for fun if there is a rating system oh well idc, im facing teams that at the same skill as me... Who cares if im better then some other person cuz i have higher rating then them... Ya'll are just looking too much into it, i always think that some of ya'll are effected too much with what other people do. There is always bad apples no matter what

[Lucky_]

From what I understood, arenanet is betting big on DOTA crowd taking over e-sport element. And to do this, they're making the "top dog" gameplay into basically a DOTA with more skills.

As a result, they can't really make other PvP modes competitive. That would reduce the e-sport success chances, as DOTA crowd would not pick up the game as enthusiastically.

Notably if any of you seriously think it isn't going to be build wars on top of 5v5, I have land on the moon to sell you. It will be slightly less build wars then GW1, but probably not by much. And if you think WoW competitive arena crowd is bad, well, you're in for a rough awakening to the realities of DOTA competitive crowd. You'll run back to WoW arena crowd and kiss their feet and apologize for ever calling them "elitist" after DOTA crowd is done with you .

[mcbeaty]

What the population difference between the players who play wow arena compared to lol/hon/dota? Also none of the maps arent tower defense like lol and hon. They are just conquest

[Larynx]

What the population difference between the players who play wow arena compared to lol/hon/dota? Also none of the maps arent tower defense like lol and hon. They are just conquest

Lol has about 30 million accounts.

WoW has about 10 million accounts

Probably 30% of the active community of WoW does PvP, and a smaller portion does hardcore PvP (like gladiator/duelist ect)

Not sure how many active accounts Lol has, or that genre in general. But it vastly dwarfs WoW's PvP community.

edit: btw the 30 million was from personal knowledge, not sure how accurate that is now

---------- Post added 2012-02-28 at 01:41 AM ----------

http://venturebeat.com/2011/11/18/le...llion-players/

here we go, the url says 15 but the article says 30.

It says there is 11 million active players. The article was from November 2011.

---------- Post added 2012-02-28 at 01:45 AM ----------

For HoN, from Wikipedia:

As of February 2011, the game has sold over 400,000 copies, had over 12.3 million downloads, and averages more than 230,000 players per day,[30] with upwards of 40,000 players concurrently playing the game at any given time."

Can't find any information regarding Dota 2.