Why the aversion to skirmishes?

[Firebert]

Synergy with your partners is a given and requisite knowledge, really.

Not at all levels, which is (a reason) twos still exists.

Playing with X+Y, Y+Z, and X+Z doesn't solve much of anything in 3s because the entire dynamic is changed.

That's a matter of opinion. For X+Z, going to threes might just be playing like twos and defending a healer, whilst both X and Z playing to the strengths of what they learned whilst synergising with Y, for example. Hardly a completely revolutionary gameplay mechanic.

[krykiett]

I would think "they weren't widely used" would indicate they are using that space to do other things. I might be way off base in that thought though.

Wargames and skirmishes:

We also add things players may not ask for. Given the popularity of pet battles, that one was a good call. Wargames, maybe not. But we know a lot of players miss skirmish, and we'd love to bring it back someday.

It was LITERALLY two lines down from what YOU are quoting.

Edit: Why exactly do you think they would lie about lack of people using a function? And for that matter they don't have to quantify anything to any of us.

[bionics]

Not at all levels, which is (a reason) twos still exists.


That's a matter of opinion. For X+Z, going to threes might just be playing like twos and defending a healer, whilst both X and Z playing to the strengths of what they learned whilst synergising with Y, for example. Hardly a completely revolutionary gameplay mechanic.

It's not opinion. 3vs3 is different from 2vs2. That's just a cold, hard fact. 2vs2 practice will make you a better player overall, but not in reacting correctly to 3vs3 scenarios.

And to your scenario; not necessarily. If you are a pally and warrior facing mage/rogue, you would play it a certain way. Add a priest to the mage/rogue team, and you might try and just go all out on the priest, making the strategy of high defense you used against the mage/rogue in 2vs2 highly inapplicable.

---------- Post added 2012-11-18 at 02:15 AM ----------

And for that matter they don't have to quantify anything to any of us.

When they keep brushing skirmishes under the table and saying, "They weren't that played," while War Games are played to an even less degree, it would be nice to see some data given. Why the hell not?

[Firebert]

If you are a pally and warrior facing mage/rogue, you would play it a certain way. Add a priest to the mage/rogue team, and you might try and just go all out on the priest, making the strategy of high defense you used against the mage/rogue in 2vs2 highly inapplicable.

And, what does the third partner have to say about RMP, during synergy with the Paladin and the Warrior?

The idea is to look at all angles, not just the one that supports your point.

[bionics]

And, what does the third partner have to say about RMP, during synergy with the Paladin and the Warrior?

The idea is to look at all angles, not just the one that supports your point.

You just proved my point for me.

[Firebert]

You just proved my point for me.

You... don't understand what I'm saying.

EDIT: Clarification. Paladin/Warrior/X vs RMP. Just from the Paladin/Warrior PoV, they have to consider:
*What they did against Rogue/Mage
*What they did against Rogue/Priest
*What they did against Mage/Priest.

You assumed from the first point that they'd break from all three strategies.

EDIT II: Following on from that, they have to consider (each)
*What they did against Rogue/Mage with Y
*What they did against Rogue/Priest with Y
*What they did against Mage/Priest with Y.

Hence, a strategy is formulated from all nine twos strats.

[bionics]

You... don't understand what I'm saying.

Nor do you understand my previous points. Or what's even being argued, really.

[Omniscient]

Not at all levels, which is (a reason) twos still exists.


That's a matter of opinion. For X+Z, going to threes might just be playing like twos and defending a healer, whilst both X and Z playing to the strengths of what they learned whilst synergising with Y, for example. Hardly a completely revolutionary gameplay mechanic.

Dear Firebert, quit being a complete retard. Thanks, from the entirety of the forums. You can go away now, back to what you were doing. Likely raging at any PvPer you see in game, because you're terribly angry that you're bad at it.

[Firebert]

Nor do you understand my previous points. Or what's even being argued, really.

Of course I understood them, hence my response to them directly, and if I did not understand what was being argued, then my posts would be offtopic (which they aren't).

---------- Post added 2012-11-18 at 07:37 AM ----------

You're bad at it.

Probably, but that doesn't mean I'm not allowed to have an opinion. And I'm not angry.

[bionics]

Dear Firebert, quit being a complete retard. Thanks, from the entirety of the forums. You can go away now, back to what you were doing. Likely raging at any PvPer you see in game, because you're terribly angry that you're bad at it.

Woah, guy. He may be wrong in his reasoning, but at least he's being civil in his responses. He doesn't deserve that... does he?

[Omniscient]

Of course I understood them, hence my response to them directly, and if I did not understand what was being argued, then my posts would be offtopic (which they aren't).

---------- Post added 2012-11-18 at 07:37 AM ----------


Probably, but that doesn't mean I'm not allowed to have an opinion. And I'm not angry.

It's actually very obvious how angry you are. Sure, you're allowed to have an opinion. Keep it to yourself, in this case because it's not needed. Looking in on it, you're a class act retard, you know one of the bad players of the game that actual tend to ruin it for the real players. Especially when it comes to PvP.

[bionics]

Yeah, I really miss skirmishes. I used to spam them back in LK was fun.

The fact that there is absolutely no reward and you can just spam them is exactly what makes them fun, lol.

They could even go a step further and add a soloq system(even without rewards at all) like LoL/dota and that'd probably become the biggest success since the implementation of Arenas itself, in terms of fun factor and participation.

Thank you for reinforcing my sentiment.

Not everything in the game needs a tangible reward just for it to be useful; in fact, you could argue the entire game is a waste of time, but if you're having fun -- who is to judge?

[Vampyrr]

Firebert your point doesnt make much sense. Its far easy to get better at 2/3s by doing them then by doing something completely unrelated. I have done bgs with my 2s partner and it is NOTHING like real arenas. We wreck kids because they go for the big bad warrior and ignore the healer. Or they dont peel for their own healer and I kill him. I get what you are trying to say but its not reality

[Firebert]

Not everything in the game needs a tangible reward just for it to be useful; in fact, you could argue the entire game is a waste of time, but if you're having fun -- who is to judge?

Someone has a Bertrand Russel quote in their signature that reads along the lines of "Time wasted whilst having fun is time well spent". And I agree with it.

It's just that that doesn't seem to be in line with the direction World of Warcraft is going (rewards for everything).

---------- Post added 2012-11-18 at 07:56 AM ----------

Firebert your point doesnt make much sense. Its far easy to get better at 2/3s by doing them then by doing something completely unrelated.

I don't think that twos and threes are that far apart. You do. That's opinion.

I have done bgs with my 2s partner and it is NOTHING like real arenas. We wreck kids because they go for the big bad warrior and ignore the healer. Or they dont peel for their own healer and I kill him.

And that happens in Arena. It's just they have to learn and you exploited what you already knew.

[bionics]

The fact of the matter is that doing a 3vs3 skirmish would be far better practice for 3vs3 Arena than doing 2vs2 and compiling "who did what/where" with X, Y, and Z in a series of different combinations. You said skirmishes are useless... but that contradicts your statement right there. Not sure why you keep trying to argue against it.

[Firebert]

The fact of the matter is that doing a 3vs3 skirmish would be far better practice for 3vs3 Arena than doing 2vs2 and compiling "who did what/where" with X, Y, and Z in a series of different combinations.

Fact as opinion.

[bionics]

Fact as opinion.

Hahaha. Now you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. I'd love to see you as a coach:

"HAY GUYS, I know we play 5 on 5 basketball this season but we're gonna just play 2 on 2! Teams are comprised of two guards, two forwards, and a center but we're gonna play just centers vs. centers all year in practice! SOUND COOL!? Great, go out there and give 'em hell, boys!"

[Firebert]

Hahaha. Now you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

No, I just don't think that trying to take the higher intellectual ground via fallacious arguments warrant a response.

"HAY GUYS, I know we play 5 on 5 basketball this season but we're gonna just play 2 on 2! Teams are comprised of two guards, two forwards, and a center but we're gonna play just centers vs. centers all year in practice! SOUND COOL!? Great, go out there and give 'em hell, boys!"

Misrepresenting my argument.

[AiAtola]

The should just had the solo queue to arenas/rbg, no need for skirmishes.

[Firebert]

The should just had the solo queue to arenas/rbg, no need for skirmishes.

With low RBG exposure and RBGs already being queuable in a group of five, I can see both of these coming.