Highly Rated Post: Competitive Gaming

Arenas
Prev 1 6 7 8 14 Next
great post, too bad blizzard won't read it and act upon it.
01/03/2013 04:44 AMPosted by Infinitea
And interesting mechanics mean nothing if the game isn't balanced!


True but balance is usually just a matter of adjusting numbers. Mechanics should always be top priority when designing a game. Balance can come later as a result of testing and tweaking.
01/02/2013 10:23 PMPosted by Jacobmarley
the gear is in the way of the fun.. not a goal but the grind before you get to play your toon the way you can.


Well said.
Smite, I think you outlined in my mind waht I despise about pvp. The gear grind.

Why is there such a thing? And why when I enter my fresh 90 into a arena, I am technically ineligible because I am not in full pvp gear? I mean I can participate, but I get demolished.

I propose a different system. Give it ranks, like private to start, corporal and so on. Everyone in private rank is absolutely void of pvp gear, and after reaching a certain mimlestone, such as games won, or something like that automatically "promote" them up a rank, and give them a piece of gear. Make the system extremely strict, as not letting other ranks face lower ranks, and make it so you can't simply delete your gear. One could log in, play with level competition, and have fun.

The current system could match you against gladiators. What is the point for anyone in that match? The glads don't get anything out of it and the noobs get discouraged. When I arena on my druid, it is grossly apparent that bring the player not the class, is something they obviously forgot.

Now it is bring the most geard warrior/hunter/frostmage. It has absolutely nothing to do with skill. Every class has some sort of homogenized cc, and it's just a zerg fest.

The gear grind is the worst thing about pvp because there is no distinction amongst the system as to geared players and non.

And doesn't resil and pvp power just cancel themselves out? What a waste of time, oh here is resil to reduce damage taken, now dps you get pvp power, which increases damage against player targets. Couldn't they just leave that stuff out? And why not make certain abilities work one way vs players, and a totally different against mobs? That would be almost instant balance. Although I saw a post by GC that said they hate doing that and it is only a last resort.
We also have to think of blizzards mindset about this, and I am just assuming it's this way.

We posting here, and reading this are but a FRACTION of a fraction of a fraction of the player base. And their current game model probably makes the majority happy. I guarantee you this is not a rpg like it used to be, now it's just a way to make money.

I mean look at the recycled boss mechanics, the stupid new classes like monks, dks and really, pandas? What a stupid race. Transmorging? That is cute but they buit a whole patch around it. Pet battles? What is this, pokemon?

When I started playing 3 months before bc launched this game used to light my imagination on fire. Now, it is like a !@#$ habit. I log in expecting that same game I saw on southpark, and now I have some soggy bread like product.

But my point is, while there are just mond blowing great ideas in this thread, it probably falls on deaf ears. I guess this is where the fantasy part comes in, we all wish for a better game.
01/04/2013 07:41 PMPosted by Nagafishy
But my point is, while there are just mond blowing great ideas in this thread, it probably falls on deaf ears.


Some deaf people can hear if you yell loud enough.
What a tragedy, this post is in vein like every single post that is pvp related. Blizzard can seriously eat mounds of dog !@#$ for neglecting their own forums and the pvp community as a hole.
01/02/2013 10:17 AMPosted by Zimzallabim
Blizzard already has arguably the best competitive game in Starcraft. Doubt they care enough to make WoW competitive


Why would a company not want to achieve a monopoly in 2 genres of games as E-Sports? Seems like a bad business decision. There is still no game like this that has been introduced into major tournaments on the scale of things like MLG. Guildwars failed, Terra is PVE oriented, Dragon's Nest is unknown. Blizzard has a chance to make a lot out of this if they just put in the effort.
01/03/2013 11:52 AMPosted by Strohmiov
great post, too bad blizzard won't read it and act upon it.


400 page forum topics are hard to ignore. Make it happen.
01/09/2013 08:15 PMPosted by Getsomesmite
great post, too bad blizzard won't read it and act upon it.


400 page forum topics are hard to ignore. Make it happen.
Sir you are incorrect. Look at this gem I found on twitter: https://twitter.com/stupidtiwtter/status/287328460882472960

And I quote directly from Ghostcrawler: "I read the forums constantly. I don't post anymore. I don't think it was a good experiment. Too early to tell about Twitter."

So, these forums are here for you to read, but not to tell us anything in general, what a great !@#$ing genius idea... Not posting on your own god dam forum is the most unintelligent thing anyone in his position can do.
01/09/2013 09:40 PMPosted by Imij


400 page forum topics are hard to ignore. Make it happen.
Sir you are incorrect. Look at this gem I found on twitter: https://twitter.com/stupidtiwtter/status/287328460882472960

And I quote directly from Ghostcrawler: "I read the forums constantly. I don't post anymore. I don't think it was a good experiment. Too early to tell about Twitter."

So, these forums are here for you to read, but not to tell us anything in general, what a great !@#$ing genius idea... Not posting on your own god dam forum is the most unintelligent thing anyone in his position can do.


Some blues still do post on these forums and I think it's at least worth getting the word out. Replies are not necessary for attention.
Doubt PvP will ever be balanced, for that to happen they'd have to make PvE and PvP competently different games so to speak. Make one not influence the other but they don't know how to do that I guess.
01/11/2013 06:38 PMPosted by Hobbzok
Doubt PvP will ever be balanced, for that to happen they'd have to make PvE and PvP competently different games so to speak. Make one not influence the other but they don't know how to do that I guess.


It's not so much not knowing how to as it is this bizarre philosophy that the games should be intertwined. We need o show them that this is NOT what the community wants.
01/01/2013 01:23 PMPosted by Infinitea
more accurately, this would have been the correct path for 'initial' design. but since wow isn't in the initial design phase anymore, they would have to retroactively implement this philosophy by removing certain pve moves from the pvp environment. having those pve-only damage moves to tweak and adjust is how pve dps would stay balanced, while not interfering with pvp balance.


There are tons of way to keep pve balanced. The way that you mentioned is one example but they could also implement boss-specific weaknesses. Frost mages not doing enough damage? Increase a boss's frost damage taken by X%. feral druids doing too much damage? decrease a boss's bleed damage taken by X%. Because the receiver of these changes (the boss) is not an actual person, it is a loot easier to implement these changes without an abundance of complaints. Yet another reason that pvp balancing should come first, because pve balancing is just a matter of number tweaking (which can be done boss-specifically) and not often a matter of mechanic changes.
1. Interest:Well Designed Game Mechanics and Uniqueness
While I agree that many classes were made to be homogenized, you must also understand the reasoning behind it. Inevitably there will be a hierarchy of classes in best-worst order, so in true WoW-Gamer fashion, we'll find the class that performs the absolute best and flock to it. This is what astounds me about WoW players, we gripe for something, and once we get it, we hate it. Cookie-cutter comps are mentioned, and in any direction they'll still exist, but the level of "sense" made by picking a particular class for the given comp will vary. Think of traditional TSG versus TSG with a Resto Shaman at the later end of Cataclysm, the hpal version had its strengths and strides, but a resto shaman just made all the more sense with its array of tools. I think nearly anybody that played this game to a fairly competent level would've agreed that any comp with a resto shaman would almost always be better than previous versions. While all classes may have been closely homogenized, there were still the best and worst in the pecking order. Everybody should remember the abundance of RLS, RMP, Thug, and Shadow(shatter)play teams, just to name a few, and everybody should remember saying to other players "just play RLS it's an instant 2200 if you're not retarded".

See what I mean? We want variety and we want change, but if it isn't a change that puts our particular class or comp in the limelight we completely reject it. "Well I guess (class) is gonna get the shaft this season, guess I'll have to shelf my toon and reroll FOTM this season /rolleyes".

Priests, paladins, monks, shamans, and druids; five healing classes. Take 2 of those classes and make them single target healers with medium-high cast times (not even a weak AoE, HoT, or shield), take 3 classes and give them no mana-regen cooldowns whatsoever, take 2 classes and make them HoT only (no other heals at all), and finally take 4 of the 5 classes and give them horrible survivability.

Do you see the situation that this creates? You now must find the one particular class that has the greatest amount of all of these tools, and no more than 2 will EVER make enough sense to be serious about. Other classes will have their strengths, but they'll remain mediocre in the food chain. We gamers that play any serious time figure out things quickly, and queuing into any team that has the weaker classes will be dead from the start.

Remember when the arena would start and your team would call out what comp you were playing? Shortly after that, when you began to strategize, a lot of "just zerg this class", "sit on this class until we can swap on this class", "hit both dps hard until the healer is OOM or out of CD's", or "just hit anybody and someone will die, we can even split DPS".

This is the ridiculous nature that I'm referring to. Even despite the homogenization, there were still the most sought after classes, and all others weren't even considered.

"LF healer for 3's."
"Rdruid here I'll play."
"Sorry don't want rdruid."

People can use the excuse of a class just not synergizing well with a particular comp, and it's partly true, but it's mostly because the overall weakness of a class. Refer back to "replace this healer with an rsham and instant glad kthx."

TL;DR: Make up your mind about whether or not you want something, and don't gripe whenever you get it and it isn't how you fantasized.
I'm not totally sure what point you're defending so i'll just comment on this part.

01/19/2013 05:41 PMPosted by Káin
While I agree that many classes were made to be homogenized, you must also understand the reasoning behind it. Inevitably there will be a hierarchy of classes in best-worst order


Classes that are different can have strengths in different areas that make them the "best" at that one thing. When all classes are mostly the same, it creates, not only a more boring game but, also creates a more obvious definition of the "best class". It's hard to just throw away class X when that class is the best at one thing. It almost always makes it useful for a particular comp/play-style.

Take for example WOTLK priest. They had worst mana efficiency and survivability of all healers yet they were not simply thrown out at first glance. Why? They had a niche that they could fill. They could put out offensive pressure better than other healers with damage/mana burn. This made them useful in comps that utilized heavy control but perhaps lacked some offensive pressure.

When all healers follow the same design it's easy to look at all of them, find the biggest numbers and go with it. When classes come with unique designs and play-styles this is far harder to do and it leads to more classes being viable because of that niche role they can fill.
01/19/2013 06:24 PMPosted by Getsomesmite
Classes that are different can have strengths in different areas that make them the "best" at that one thing. When all classes are mostly the same, it creates, not only a more boring game but, also creates a more obvious definition of the "best class". It's hard to just throw away class X when that class is the best at one thing. It almost always makes it useful for a particular comp/play-style.


In theory the game can become boring, but honestly it's a slight boon to these players that would otherwise be unheard of. Think of if a healing class didn't have a single dispel, or a DPS class that had no defensive CD's period, they would be unheard of in competitive play. If paladins didn't have bubble, they probably wouldn't be taken along as a healer, likewise if warlocks had no fears, they probably wouldn't be taken as a DPS. The overall strategy of the game is somewhat to blame as well as some various mechanical/stat flaws.

01/19/2013 06:24 PMPosted by Getsomesmite
Take for example WOTLK priest. They had worst mana efficiency and survivability of all healers yet they were not simply thrown out at first glance. Why? They had a niche that they could fill. They could put out offensive pressure better than other healers with damage/mana burn. This made them useful in comps that utilized heavy control but perhaps lacked some offensive pressure.


This is my point that I was making about shamans at the end of Cataclysm. While the priest may have had its niche, that niche may not have been very "common". I'm by no means saying priests were irrelevant in Wrath, so please don't misunderstand me, I'm only making a point. Back to my comparison, by the end of Cataclysm, you could replace every healer in every comp with a shaman and get by with it. This comparison isn't meant to be an end-be-all of comparisons, but I'm just trying to give an example of the things that can happen. Take Earth Shield away from the shaman and give it to a resto druid, does the druid become the more popular? Not really. A handful of things were common among the classes, but there were also many things different between them all, and there were very clear pairings and replacements to be made. No matter what synergistic properties were present, the shaman could stand very solidly on its own. That's all I'm trying to get at: some classes had too much, and others far too little.

01/19/2013 06:24 PMPosted by Getsomesmite
When all healers follow the same design it's easy to look at all of them, find the biggest numbers and go with it. When classes come with unique designs and play-styles this is far harder to do and it leads to more classes being viable because of that niche role they can fill.


I understand what you're saying, but despite the variety there will still be a very clear superior. You could have a healer with a dispel-team spell still getting passed up on a healer with a "last minute save" spell, and this could be completely dependent on current mechanics. Remember the end of S11 when cunnings were so popular as well as DoT cleaves? In this particular example, the team-dispel could pass the "last minute save" who would probably be more suited to zerg teams in importance, again due to what's "hot" because of current design and available gear.

All I'm really trying to say is that to achieve harmony (not balance) HUUUUUUGE amounts of work will need to be done, and it may never even happen, but more than that, the players will likely NEVER be satisfied. If you have people that want differences between classes, you'll get flame out of those that are stuck with the end of the stick, and if you have people that want equality, then you'll have people that are tired of not being "competitive" against other healers (i.e. not having anything that makes them more "attractive"). Gamers have been, and probably always will be, jaded and spoiled, and despite attempts to satisfy us, we continue to find fault and say "no that's not what I wanted". We can't seem to figure out exactly what we want in one particular area. We'll find things that we like and say "why can't they make this game like that game gawrsh" but if we get it we say "jeez now this is like that game stealing ideas much oh gawd why do i even play this junk".

TL;DR: We have to be able to take the bad with the good, within reason of course - despite the definition of "within reason" is open to far too much variance - and continue to innovate, otherwise the game becomes repetitive, which oddly enough is another thing we complain about.
01/19/2013 09:11 PMPosted by Káin
Think of if a healing class didn't have a single dispel, or a DPS class that had no defensive CD's period, they would be unheard of in competitive play.


Shamans and druids didn't have dispel in wrath and they were fine. I suppose with the massive redesign that healers have seen this probably couldn't happen today without significant changes but having a difference like that doesn't make a class bad so long as it can compete in another (shamans had 6 second wind shear cooldown and druids had a lot of CC and heavy sustained heals).

01/19/2013 09:11 PMPosted by Káin
by the end of Cataclysm, you could replace every healer in every comp with a shaman and get by with it.


This once again would be harded to do if we had a more wrath-like design style. Look at some popular wrath comps there was RMP. Can you really replace the priest with another healer? You could but it wouldn't really fit the play style and would be less effective. TSG. Paladin fit very well because it had a bubble to cover itself during the short time that matches usually lasted and could keep its team mobile with freedom. Other healers didn't really work as well. It was only really with cata design of "let's make everything the same" that caused mix-matching without really punishing synergy. This makes it very easy to just say "shamans are better because their numbers are higher". In Wrath you simply couldn't do that so all classes were viable because they fit their niche. Yes people are going to complain whenever their class has a weakness that other classes don't have but if those people completely ignore their strength then we can just ignore their ignorant opinion (ignore-ception). When Cata came out WoW lost about a million subscribers (I was one of them. Really, i'm only back now because a friend bought me subscription). I think that in itself says that a pretty large portion of WoW's population preferred the old design that actually took some creativity, rather than just copy-paste.

01/19/2013 09:11 PMPosted by Káin
I understand what you're saying, but despite the variety there will still be a very clear superior


There was no clear superior in season 7/8. Every healer had specific comps that they worked in. You couldn't just throw in a priest to a TSG and expect it to be competitive to the extent that a pally would be. Same thing goes for throwing a druid into an RMP. Every healer had their niche and every healer saw competitive play because of it. There was no "best" healer. Season 7 still exists of some PVP private servers and on those, regardless of the fact that anyone can role anything you see a huge variety of classes. There was no OP class that everyone instantly gravitates towards like there would have been if the same thing existed for Cata or today's game.

01/19/2013 09:11 PMPosted by Káin
We have to be able to take the bad with the good, within reason of course - despite the definition of "within reason" is open to far too much variance - and continue to innovate, otherwise the game becomes repetitive, which oddly enough is another thing we complain about.


Just based on the million subscribers that dropped this game when everything became homogenized I would say that wrath had the best balance of good/bad (weakness/strength) that this game has ever seen. Look at how successful arena-tournament has been just based off keeping that design philosophy. PVPers are way happier on there than they are on live.
I understand the things you're saying, and I agree with quite a lot of it, but if we were to have kept that same design, it would've probably drawn more flack than praise. No matter how good something is, people will complain about it after a period of time. The subscription losses can be a product of bad changes implemented, and it could also be those who sit behind their rose-tinted glasses bickering and nitpicking, or a mixture of the two. Building change off of past successes makes people say "well they're just doing the same thing from previous xpac so i'm not gonna spend $40 buying the new xpac for the same stuff" and things of that sort. Innovations must be made, and Blizzard sticks their neck out a lot for us despite what we may think sometimes. We all seem to "know what's best for us", but I don't think many people understand or appreciate the amount of work and time it takes. Many scoff it off, and regardless of what opinions people have of the company and what they do(n't) get, some respect is due instead of so much hate; temper tantrums never get much results except out of weak-willed parents.

I'll go on record to say that many things in Cataclysm fell flat, but ultimately I think most of the sub losses are people that have played the game so long that there's nothing left to dazzle them with, so why continue playing? I'm like you, I've been out of the game since about July of 2012. I fell out of love with the monotony of both the PvE and the PvP; raid leaders and PvPers too picky about different things left a bad taste in my mouth, among other things. I'm only back on a 10 day trial for Mists just to see if I may want to come back because I did enjoy playing.
people fail to realize the only reason this game was MLG back in BC was because of it's popularity. it was just as crap of a game now as it was then, the only reason people cry about changes is because they're nostalgic about previous expansions. everything new is fun.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum