People say PvP isnt balanced around 1v1 yada yada, but heres why you should care

[sacrypheyes]

If you want balanced PvP with equal classes, maybe you should be playing Halo.
It's based on a fantasy universe with classes derived from fantasy roles. Unless you want them to labotomize any uniqueness out of every class then you'll stop bitching or go play your xbox.

balancing different classes and specs so that they can pretty much deal other in a 1v1 fight doesn't imply they have to look like each other you know, far from it actually if dev team is talented enough.

If they were all equal, than every spec of every class would be able to perform equally and everyone would end up heals/dps/tank at the same time. If you're not happy about how your class/spec performs overall and it's such a "bs game breaking" deal, get to making an alt or nine.

now that is some really narrow-minded way of thinking. hopefully, you're not in wow dev team, or are you?

[SilkforCalde]

While it's defo not possible to balance 1v1 perfectly and get balanced group PvP I -do- believe that tuning 1v1 a bit better, at least to the point where there aren't ridiculous mismatches (Frost Mage vs. Melee anyone?) would actually result in a more balanced group PvP setting. The reason being that - at least to a degree - such mechanics are pyramidical, and if there are gross imbalances at 1v1 or 2v2 they can often be transferred to higher brackets unless repeatedly band-aid fixed.

The problem with such band-aid fixes (like giving Frost Mages and S Priests the MS effect) is that they're blanket attempts to rebalance imbalanced class/comp match-ups and will only cause as many problems as they fix - they basically just relocate the issues somewhere else because the main issues are at the basis. The second variabes shift a little, be it due to a new tier of gear or perhaps a change elsewhere, they then become imbalanced again requiring another band-aid fix to counter the original band-aid fix and then another band-aid fix is required after that and then....oh my God!

It's my opinion that taking things down to base factors, balancing them there and then working your way up is the best way to achieve PvP balance even in group scenarios...so to that point, at least a modicum of 1v1 balance is not meaningless at all.

You are operating under a fundamental misconception. You believe that 1v1 imbalances find their way into small group content, which is false. Something as minor as 2v2 completely and utterly demolishes all 1v1 imbalances. There is no correlation, whatsoever, between a 1v1 imbalance and a 2v2 / 3v3 / 4v4 / 5v5 / etc. imbalance. None. Balancing around 1v1 would be irresponsibly stupid. Thank heavens you don't work at Blizzard.

[sacrypheyes]

and of course, you've had high level studies to state that 1v1 imbalances being unrelated to x vs x imbalances imply that balancing 1v1 is useless.

and if they are unrelated (actually i'd say that 1v1 imbalances can influence group pvp rather than saying it's always the case) then i'd think it'd the better the reason to balance out 1v1.

[SilkforCalde]

and of course, you've had high level studies to state that 1v1 imbalances being unrelated to x vs x imbalances imply that balancing 1v1 is useless.

and if they are unrelated (actually i'd say that 1v1 imbalances can influence group pvp rather than saying it's always the case) then i'd think it'd the better the reason to balance out 1v1.

No, it's obvious. Use my previous example. Arms warrior is one of the WORST 1v1 classes but has routinely been one of the TOP arena classes. Why is this? Because to reach the potential of an arms warrior, you need a healer. Healers completely change the dynamics of pvp.

Your last line makes absolutely no sense, so there's no way to respond to it.

And to the people that say 1v1 situations happen in BGs, so do 5v1 situations. Should 5v1 be balanced? If not, why not?

[sacrypheyes]

well since you're not even reading (and compute) properly what's written, i guess there's no sense trying to make sense with you is it?

let's try again.
you keep saying 1v1 imbalances aren't related to 2v2, 3v3 etc imbalances. if that's the case, how does it even matter to you that 1v1 gets fixed since that shouldn't hurt 2v2 or any group pvp (they're unrelated after all remember?).

and talking bout your arms warrior example, the fact that it's a warrior doesn't matter as much as the group comp itself and the synergy between the different classes.
the fact that warrior is a popular arena class has to do with the great scaling with end-game gear, moar dmg, moar hp, moar crits, etc.

and yeah, 5v1 exists, except if the "1" makes it alive, something's broken, if he dies, there's no skill, barely 5ppl ganking a soon-to-die player and there's no balance question implied.

[Wrinkle]

I'm a devoted fan of world pvp (not dead btw and not irrelevant to the game's balance) spending sometimes 6 consecutive hours pvping Wintergrasp whether it's in session or not. Depending on the day, sometimes my honor/hour is higher than bgs. My most exciting, compelling battles by far have been outside of bgs and arena.

Not to go off topic, but some reason's for this are:
Greater penalty for losing... corpse run sometimes w/ 2 min wait + the time it takes to safely rez -- instead of < 30 sec spirit healer rez
More variables to adapt to... anything from terrain features to quest mechanics to mobs to other players getting involved at any time.
When it gets personal... the same rogue's killed you 3 time's in a row, but you think if you get the jump on him you could win and redeem yourself.
The kill is the objective... not some inanimate flag or... /groan... a vehicle.

I always thought of world pvp as the pinnacle of pvp, and bgs/arenas as some amusing feature just tacked on for amusement of it. I know I'm a minority, but those are my 2 cents.

Oh ya, point being I'd like to see balance around 1v1 cause I just don't care as much about the rest.

Morons like you are not the minority. You and your petty little fights are what ruin PvP. Every BG I go into the retards are there just for the kills, so there is no strategy, no thought, no teamwork. Only little boys get hardons for killing other players over and over. Eventually they need to grow up and see that if there is some other objective like a flag, you are forced to think differently about the encounter. If making the other player dead is the only objective, the same spells get used over and over, the same cookie cutter talents. This lone ninja warrior fantasy belongs only in the movies and single player games. Get over your anti-social teenage fantasies.

[SilkforCalde]

No, see, you weren't making sense.

"and if they are unrelated then i'd think it'd the better the reason to balance out 1v1."

If and then don't follow. If 1v1 balance is unrelated to group balance, then why would it follow that 1v1 should be balanced? It doesn't follow at all. There's no relation.

1v1 has no relevance to any meaningful gameplay in WoW. There are no rewards for dueling outside of an achievement to win one duel which is a freebie joke of an achievement anyway. It doesn't make sense to balance irrelevant gameplay. To waste all those resources on something that has absolutely zero effect on the actual game of WoW.

The reason why warrior is such a bad 1v1 class (or was historically such a bad 1v1 class) is because warriors need heals and are particularly susceptible to most forms of crowd control. Not because of gear scaling or anything of that sort. The reason why warrior is such a good arena class is because, once they have a healer, they become a behemoth of dishing out pain. Not because of gear scaling.

My 5v1 example was ludicrous on purpose. Just because a situation happens in a battleground doesn't mean that you should balance around it.