Arenas from a noobs pov.

[LFPO8k]

balancing chess

I get your point, but chess is the most balanced game ever, it's basically a mirror game, both sides have the same pieces, moves etc.
Good point but not the best metaphor

[jaakkeli]

I get your point, but chess is the most balanced game ever, it's basically a mirror game, both sides have the same pieces, moves etc.
Good point but not the best metaphor

The chess pieces are very unbalanced, compare a pawn to a queen.

It's a very good example, actually. The best piece, the queen, is the best piece regardless of whether or not a newbie or a grandmaster is playing, just like sometimes there's a truly OP class that can cheese victories for a newbie and populate the high rateds in ridiculous excess. The pawn is the least valuable piece both to a grandmaster and to a newbie.

However, there are some tricky pieces (classes) like knights that tend to confuse newbies. The knight is powerful in the hands of a good player but newbies tend to prefer rooks and bishops because their movement is much simpler to grasp and it's much easier for a newbie to plan moves with them. A somewhat more experienced player can use knights to devastating effect against newbies since they're unlikely to see their moves coming.

So the first impression of a new chess player might be that knights suck (when newbies play against each other and neither player knows how to use knights), then later knights are OP (when the newbie starts meeting more experienced players who know how to use knights when he still doesn't know what they can do) and then eventually knights are pretty balanced and about as valuable as bishops but not OP when experienced players play against each other.

Similarily, WoW class balance changes a lot with player experience levels. Some classes have tricks and combos that will screw you bad unless you do specific things to counter them and newbies tend to find these classes OP while in more experienced play you might never even see that OP combo being performed because everyone knows how to avoid it.

[Tulkus]

The chess pieces are very unbalanced, compare a pawn to a queen.

It's a very good example, actually. The best piece, the queen, is the best piece regardless of whether or not a newbie or a grandmaster is playing, just like sometimes there's a truly OP class that can cheese victories for a newbie and populate the high rateds in ridiculous excess. The pawn is the least valuable piece both to a grandmaster and to a newbie.

However, there are some tricky pieces (classes) like knights that tend to confuse newbies. The knight is powerful in the hands of a good player but newbies tend to prefer rooks and bishops because their movement is much simpler to grasp and it's much easier for a newbie to plan moves with them. A somewhat more experienced player can use knights to devastating effect against newbies since they're unlikely to see their moves coming.

So the first impression of a new chess player might be that knights suck (when newbies play against each other and neither player knows how to use knights), then later knights are OP (when the newbie starts meeting more experienced players who know how to use knights when he still doesn't know what they can do) and then eventually knights are pretty balanced and about as valuable as bishops but not OP when experienced players play against each other.

Similarily, WoW class balance changes a lot with player experience levels. Some classes have tricks and combos that will screw you bad unless you do specific things to counter them and newbies tend to find these classes OP while in more experienced play you might never even see that OP combo being performed because everyone knows how to avoid it.

While I understand the point you're trying to make, it is in fact YOUR point that is wrong, and your example of chess being imbalanced still doesn't make sense. Balance only matters when it gives one player an advantage over another. This isn't the case in chess. Every player has the exact same tools, starts from the same relative position, etc. All that really distinguished one player from another is their skill. THAT is balanced. It doesn't matter if a queen is stronger than a pawn, because each player has the same number of queens and pawns. No imbalances.

Your point about a new player thinking certain pieces are stronger than others when is knowledge is limited (therefore making his opinion invalid) is conceivable, but ultimately flawed. Simply because someone lacks experience on a subject does not necessarily mean that their opinion is wrong/incorrect. I know that sounds off, but it's not.

In the scope of WoW, EVERYONE'S opinion matters. Especially considering the effort that blizzard is making to have PvP be friendlier to new players. Should a lower-rated player's opinion be the foundation to base all changes on? No, but both low rated and high rated pvp boil down to the same thing, having fun in a fair, competitive environment.

All in all, a new player might not understand all the nuances of PvP and have problems with certain aspects of it, but that doesn't make their opinion wrong or invalid. What you can actually do to be useful for once is suggest solutions to their obvious problems (which a lot of people have) instead of spewing some useless garbage like "L2P" or "you're a noob so it doesn't matter what you think".

[jaakkeli]

While I understand the point you're trying to make, it is in fact YOUR point that is wrong, and your example of chess being imbalanced still doesn't make sense. Balance only matters when it gives one player an advantage over another. This isn't the case in chess. Every player has the exact same tools,

By this logic WoW is perfectly balanced as well. You're free to bring any set of classes to your arena or bg. You can use any class (piece) you want - and in most chess matches a lot of the pieces on the board are never going to come into play since they're locked behind pawns so it is indeed a matter of choosing which pieces (classes) you're going to play with at the start. Not a perfect analogy but when is an analogy ever absolutely perfect?

Your point about a new player thinking certain pieces are stronger than others when is knowledge is limited (therefore making his opinion invalid) is conceivable, but ultimately flawed. Simply because someone lacks experience on a subject does not necessarily mean that their opinion is wrong/incorrect. I know that sounds off, but it's not.

You make no sense whatsoever. Of course everyone in this example is right - new players tend not to use knights much since they don't know how so the newbie that feels knights to be underpowered is right about newbie games and wrong about elite level games while the experienced chess player who insists that knights and bishops are considered almost equal by everyone is right about high level games but wrong about newbie games.

Everyone is likely correct about the level of play they've experienced. It's just that there's very little value to being right about complete newbie level balance. No one is a complete newbie for very long so balancing the game for complete newbies is like balancing the game for level 5s - no one cares if some class does 3 times the damage of some other at that level as long as everyone can kill their quest mobs because players speed through that level so fast.

There is good reason to listen to whether a new player found something unenjoyable (for example too much cc would be annoying even if everyone had exactly balanced ccs) since that's something that makes people stay or go but balance? Nah. He's at the level where he'll learn new tricks and counters every arena match so pretty soon his opinions on balance will be completely different. It may sting to lose to a revive now but now that he knows about it it's simply no longer a factor.

All in all, a new player might not understand all the nuances of PvP and have problems with certain aspects of it, but that doesn't make their opinion wrong or invalid. What you can actually do to be useful for once is suggest solutions to their obvious problems (which a lot of people have) instead of spewing some useless garbage like "L2P" or "you're a noob so it doesn't matter what you think".

Nah, in this case the answer really is "stfu and l2p noob" though I would personally of course state it more politely and just tell the original poster to keep playing since most of his concerns won't be concerns to him after a few more play sessions in arena. At this point it's pointless for him to have opinions on balance since he's learning new things so fast that he'll have entirely different concerns next month even though the game likely won't change at all.

[Litharium]

I'm curious by which charts/graphs/measurements/scale you use to dismiss him as irrelevant. Who are you to decide which of his points were good or not? If i agreed with him on adding more burst would i become irrelevant at that point because you don't like my opinion?

To be fair the only really good point he made was the fact there is way too much CC and possibly the taunt thing that intrigues me but a lot of classes have it so I think it would just be added CC.

Not knowing about revive was him being new to arenas but the rogue not attacking and interrupting a 10 second cast was his rogues fault.

The fact that he said his warrior has no CC is him not reading and knowing his classes abilities. I have played a mage for 4 days and already know what I can and can't do by just reading the spells.

He also mentioned more burst which is kind of funny imo. The games burst is dumb enough already when 5 warriors can get to 2400 rating in 5s with no problem and triple DPS classes have no problem hitting 2k rating.

From what I got from the thread and what I knew I was going to get from the thread after reading the title was he is just inexperienced and does not know about PvP.

[cuafpr]

i would so love if you could really tank in pvp... via taunts and working threat = dmg reduction to other targets... or something like that.

[Coraulten]

To be fair the only really good point he made was the fact there is way too much CC and possibly the taunt thing that intrigues me but a lot of classes have it so I think it would just be added CC.

Not knowing about revive was him being new to arenas but the rogue not attacking and interrupting a 10 second cast was his rogues fault.

The fact that he said his warrior has no CC is him not reading and knowing his classes abilities. I have played a mage for 4 days and already know what I can and can't do by just reading the spells.

He also mentioned more burst which is kind of funny imo. The games burst is dumb enough already when 5 warriors can get to 2400 rating in 5s with no problem and triple DPS classes have no problem hitting 2k rating.

From what I got from the thread and what I knew I was going to get from the thread after reading the title was he is just inexperienced and does not know about PvP.

so basically outside of the points you opinion aligns with his view is pointless?