This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.

Blizzard: Arena was the biggest mistake in the history of WoW

Post Reply

Return to board index

Post by 319099

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by 320717

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by 468487

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by 468487

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by 320717

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by 468487

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by Gnostik

Goshad, I've never met you before (unlike, apparently, some other posters in this thread), but you seem to be laboring under a certain type of reasoning that I run into a lot. First, you start with a premise:

(1) If player P hates arena, P must suck at arena.

With this little gem, you can immediately jump to conclusions about anyone who complains about arena. Then, you can take the conclusion (P sucks at arena) and use it to come to another conclusion:

(2) If player P sucks at arena, and P also hates arena, P must hate arena because P sucks at arena.

However, you apparently never stop to consider that it could be the other way around:

(3) If player P sucks at arena, it might be because P hates arena, and therefore never bothers to get better.

Let's say me and a group of friends loved cricket and were really good at it. One sunny day we invite you out for a game. After we finish you're pretty sure you hate cricket and thus decide never to play again.

What if my friends and I then, over the following weeks, proceeded to harangue and insult you for not being good at cricket? That would be pretty stupid from your point of view, wouldn't it? Of course you're not good at cricket. You don't want to be. You don't even like it. If someone else is good at it and enjoys it, great. But it's not for you, so why would you care that you're not good at it?

Of course, I don't mean to imply that you concluded I was bad at arena simply because I don't like it (though I suspect you did believe that right away, and were then strengthed in your belief as you continued to read my post.) So I'll address some of the other points you make in your decidedly condescending reply to me:

arguing that BGs were a bad Idea because of instancing? whats wrong with making easy to get to PvP, that is number balanced (which is rare in world PvP), and goal driven?

be honest, its the balance that you don't like isn't it?

I don't think instancing is the only way to get balanced, easily-accessible PvP. It may be the easiest and most straightforward, but it also breaks the continuity of the game world. It's a minor point that's mostly personal preference (i.e. I prefer a seamless, unbroken world in an RPG if at all possible.)

Why would you assume I don't like balanced combat? You couldn't be further off base, but I won't belabor this point since you had nothing to base your assumption on anyway.

In addition to the gear system, the rating system is ... quirky, to say the least. Giving out PvP rewards based on a points system where you fall behind when you lose (i.e. a "Jeopardy" system, as opposed to a straight up grind) may be the single worst idea I can think of for MMO PvP. It is probably this factor that most makes me hate arena.
because players with skill are rewarded better than players with alot of time on their hands? Get over it, WoW prides itself on being such a mainstream MMO

The reason I think a jeopardy system is bad for MMOs is the "too many variables" argument (in italics):

By all means, have some "ladder" or ranking system. But don't have a system where damage-dealing characters do incredible burst, you throw two small teams into a cage to see who can blow the other one up quickest, and then you rate them on that factor. Fighting other players in an online fantasy game involves so many variables, that your wins and losses in these matches might not mean very much.
this point right here give alot of weight to my "Arena griefers just suck at PvP" argument; it is clear that you have never been in an arena game beyond 500 (1500 pre 3.1) based on your understanding of how the games work. Double dps is far from a super successful comp, and pvp in general hasn't been about "incredible burst" since 2.1 (with the exception of 3.0). Also there are just as many variables in arena games as there are in any other aspect of the game, if not more (because thats what happens when you put the best of the best into a box and have them try and outplay each other)

"here are just as many variables in arena games as there are in any other aspect of the game, if not more." Um, I'm pretty sure it's more. If you're raiding, the boss is going to have the same HPs and same abilities as last week, and it will be the same next week unless and until Blizzard nerfs it. I don't need to explain to you all the variables in PvP. Even if you run into the same team they could have switched out gear, spec, etc. to throw something new at you.

I'm not complaining about this. It's why I like PvP so much more than PvE. My point is that in a game where the PvP has so many variables (i.e. an MMORPG as opposed to, say, a FPS) it's a bad idea to focus that PvP on short cage matches where you're done as soon as you die.

As for my "clear" lack of understanding, I never said anything about double DPS. You, however, seem to think PvP isn't about burst. That's funny, and I think even the designers would disagree. I don't have the time to dig up the interview but someone from Blizz specifically said that arena was about creating a short "window" to blow someone up, and that if you can't do it in that window you will probably have to wait a minute or two for your next opportunity. Sure sounds like burst to me. (And where did the recent term "global'd" come from if PvP isn't about burst?)

Anyway, I don't have to tell anyone reading who is in touch with reality. I have played characters with 1000+ resilience. Gear like that doesn't even come close to eliminating burst, it simply gives you a chance to live through it. (For first-hand proof, go hop on the PTR where everyone is running in top PvP gear and see if you aren't still getting hit with 9k Lava Bursts.)

poor latency will also ruin BG senarios as well as boss fights- why would arenas be any different?

Poor latency will absolutely not "ruin" a boss fight, unless you are healing or tanking. But for a DPS (the majority of the raid) you can still complete your objective with high latency. The DPS loss won't break the raid.

BGs will be made more difficult, sure. "Ruined"? I don't know.

But arenas will certainly be ruined if you have poor latency. In what other area of the game can a 1-second delay completely negate your ability to complete an objective?

or the one who makes up constant excuses for his lack of skill?
there are 12 million people who play wow, trust me its not hard to find the right person

Gee, that's a really big number! Too bad it's totally irrelevant to me as a player. All that matters to me are the people who play on my server, in my faction, at the times I play. Then, out of those people, I need to find someone with a comparable gear level, who isn't already on a team, who plays the right class to, and who has the desire to get good at arena. This pool of players is just a little bit smaller than 12 million (a plurality of which, by the way, are in China.)

An arena rating in WoW may say something significant about your skill in PvP - or it may not. Personally I find the "grind" of a straight up honor accumulation over a number of weeks to be less daunting than the idea that if I don't do great in these cage matches I may end up languishing in terms of PvP progression.
I fail to see your point

grinding =/= skill

And I fail to see yours. MMORPGs have always been about grinding to varying degrees. It is the FPS-style arenas that are the aberration, not the other way around. You strike me as someone who has never played an MMO before WoW and wants it to be like Halo with more elaborate costumes.

And that's just it: in the end, WoW's arenas are a very specific and arbitrary type of PvP.
not any more specific or arbitrary than BGs

You seem to be under the impression that I love BGs and are advocating them as the be-all end-all alternative to arenas. I'm not, and I never gave that impression. (In fact I expressed a preference for non-instanced PvP early in my post.)

For example the use and countering of powerful long-term cooldowns becomes hugely important.
It always has been, that's pvp

You're right, it always has been to some degree. But in arenas where everyone enters with every CD up, they become more important. I'm not necessarily complaining about this, just pointing out some ways in which the arbitrary format of arenas affects gameplay.

But if I had to pick out one consequence that I probably hate most it's line-of-sight.
LoS has always been a major part of PvP, remember that BG that was a flat area with no hazards? yea no you don't

Ok now you're just being disingenuous. Anyone who has been in both venues knows that LoS is far more important in the small confines of the arena than it is in the BGs. Sure, you may occasionally find yourself running around, say, one of the huts in WSG. But the entire match doesn't center around the hut. The fight moves. Sometimes LoS is a factor, sometimes it's not.

Again, maybe you have no problem with this. My point is that it's completely arbitrary. They could've designed the arenas differently, and certain arena fanbois would probably still be on the boards arguing that it's the pinnacle of skill, and anyone who doesn't rock at it should quit the game.

The pacing and level of complexity are, I think, just about right. But then they go and force you into these death matches if you want the highest achievements. Why?
no one is forcing you to have the best gear, especially if you don't have the skill to get it

I didn't say anyone was forcing me, or that I had to have the best gear. My statement was a conditional one: if you want the best gear.... Again, this is an MMORPG not a FPS. Would it be so bad if the rewards you got from arena were cosmetic or simply a point of pride? (E.g. titles, trophies, etc.) There's no inherent reason why the best arena players should also get the best gear, thereby increasing the performance gap between them and those below. Again, arbitrary.

The best gear will always be awarded to the best players not the ones with the most time on their hands, that's warcraft

You're right, though the "almost-best" gear is usually available through some sort of grind. I'm fine with that. My point is not that I want easier access to the best PvP gear. My point is that when the gateway to that gear is arena, arena becomes the "real" PvP, and other PvP gets pushed to the wayside. And that, further, the "real" PvP in this game has turned into a very quirky system of cage matches that's uncharacteristic of MMORPGs historically.

All I'm saying is I don't like the cage matches. Period.

Post by 319099

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by 248538

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by 320717

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by goshadstep2lose

(1) If player P hates arena, P must suck at arena.

With this little gem, you can immediately jump to conclusions about anyone who complains about arena. Then, you can take the conclusion (P sucks at arena) and use it to come to another conclusion:

(2) If player P sucks at arena, and P also hates arena, P must hate arena because P sucks at arena.

However, you apparently never stop to consider that it could be the other way around:

(3) If player P sucks at arena, it might be because P hates arena, and therefore never bothers to get better. I never elaborated enough for you to have come to the conclusion of either train of thought, but in response: P would hate BGs as well as arenas because so often in BGs you find at least a similar situation as an XvX. So tell me is the reason you don't like arenas because you cannot run from that 1v1 as you can in bgs?

Let's say me and a group of friends loved cricket and were really good at it. One sunny day we invite you out for a game. After we finish you're pretty sure you hate cricket and thus decide never to play again. @#$% poor analogy, as we are comparing two forms of PvP, and you only use one form of cricket

But say that one guy loves the game of Kilikiti which is basically the same game. His friends invite him to play a ranked game of cricket, and by the end of the day he has formed the opinion that he hates cricket. This goes against all logic until his friends realize that his hatred of the game might stem from him being the weakest player on the team; justifiably leading them to the first opinion of player P

What if my friends and I then, over the following weeks, proceeded to harangue and insult you for not being good at cricket? That would be pretty stupid from your point of view, wouldn't it? Of course you're not good at cricket. You don't want to be. You don't even like it. If someone else is good at it and enjoys it, great. But it's not for you, so why would you care that you're not good at it? Well if P was a self proclaimed master and lover of Kilikiti, it would be completely unacceptable for him to suck and hate Cricket

Its funny how if your analogy actually works it completely turns its back on you

I don't think instancing is the only way to get balanced, easily-accessible PvP. It may be the easiest and most straightforward, but it also breaks the continuity of the game world. It's a minor point that's mostly personal preference (i.e. I prefer a seamless, unbroken world in an RPG if at all possible.) the problem is WoW is a mainstream game, and that veiwpoint is far from mainstream. For mainstream sakes, balance > continuity

Why would you assume I don't like balanced combat? Because of your previous statment, it was a reasonable conclusion

You couldn't be further off base Ill believe it when someone who's argument isn't jaded tells me so

but I won't belabor this point since you had nothing to base your assumption on anyway. except for that previous comment on BGs
The reason I think a jeopardy system is bad for MMOs is the "too many variables" argument (in italics): this defense of the argument gives even more weight to my "Arena griefers just suck at PvP" argument; if you think RNGs commonly change the outcome of arenas, its even more apparent that you have no idea how arenas work (hint: its why arenaers strive to get the soft hit cap, to get the spell pen cap, and dont stack crit)

it is clear that you have never been in an arena game beyond 500 (1500 pre 3.1) based on your understanding of how the games work. Double dps is far from a super successful comp, and pvp in general hasn't been about "incredible burst" since 2.1 (with the exception of 3.0). Also there are just as many variables in arena games as there are in any other aspect of the game, if not more (because thats what happens when you put the best of the best into a box and have them try and outplay each other)

"here are just as many variables in arena games as there are in any other aspect of the game, if not more." Um, I'm pretty sure it's more. If you're raiding, the boss is going to have the same HPs and same abilities as last week, and it will be the same next week unless and until Blizzard nerfs it. I don't need to explain to you all the variables in PvP. Even if you run into the same team they could have switched out gear, spec, etc. to throw something new at you. But thats what makes PvPers good, being able to deal with those variables accordingly so if anything- variable based wins (lol) mean even more for your team

I'm not complaining about this. It's why I like PvP so much more than PvE. My point is that in a game where the PvP has so many variables (i.e. an MMORPG as opposed to, say, a FPS) it's a bad idea to focus that PvP on short cage matches where you're done as soon as you die. why not? almost every successful MMO has had an arena system

As for my "clear" lack of understanding, I never said anything about double DPS. if burst were king- double dps would be the only competitive twos, and you would see at least one triple dps in the top 50 3s

You, however, seem to think PvP isn't about burst. That's funny, and I think even the designers would disagree. I don't have the time to dig up the interview but someone from Blizz specifically said that arena was about creating a short "window" to blow someone up, and that if you can't do it in that window you will probably have to wait a minute or two for your next opportunity. Sure sounds like burst to me. (And where did the recent term "global'd" come from if PvP isn't about burst?) Knowing when to burst your partner down is part of arenas, but it takes a backseat to CC, outmaneuvering, outlasting, and draining as far as strats go. you however are under the opinion (or you are at least trying to purvey the idea) that all arena matches last 30 seconds and its a test to see who has the higher gear score. If it were true then, agian, you would see ALOT more double dps

Also find the article- if it wasn't written in 3.0 when burst was a serious issue then I'll eat my hat

Anyway, I don't have to tell anyone reading who is in touch with reality. I have played characters with 1000+ resilience.

Gear like that doesn't even come close to eliminating burst, /facepalm

this is the second time Ive seen this argument and its just so full of fail =(
1) define burst; basically- Quick damage, not so basic- the ability to deal damage fast enough as to out pace the healers healing
2) Therefore burst is relative, healer A is better than healer B and can out heal alot more damage than B in a shorter window
3) If burst = damage then to have a stat that completely negates burst would break the game thats why no one has made the argument that that is what resil is for.

It does however GREATLY reduce the effect of burst, making healers relevant in PvP (ever pvped in vanilla? wasn't great for healers)

Poor latency will absolutely not "ruin" a boss fight, unless you are healing or tanking. unless you have one of the umpteen other important roles other than tanking or healing (hint: Im not talking about DPS)

your lack of knowledge on the subject is showing again

BGs will be made more difficult, sure. "Ruined"? I don't know. well then i will tell you, BGs in many ways mirror arenas, if there is a fair fight that you would have won with a perfect conection, but lost because of lag, in an arena, then you would lose as well in a similar BG senario

But arenas will certainly be ruined if you have poor latency. In what other area of the game can a 1-second delay completely negate your ability to complete an objective? getting that flag capper of the flag at the last second, preventing that healers insta heal on the FC causing the FC to have enough time to finish you off, defending the flag in the tower during the final recap rush seconds before it burns, can I stop yet?

Gee, that's a really big number! Too bad it's totally irrelevant to me as a player. All that matters to me are the people who play on my server, in my faction, at the times I play. Then, out of those people, I need to find someone with a comparable gear level, who isn't already on a team, who plays the right class to, and who has the desire to get good at arena. This pool of players is just a little bit smaller than 12 million (a plurality of which, by the way, are in China.) wait wait wait- you dont like arenas- why have you been trying so hard to find a partner for one?

But in a less Freudy maner- tell me what server you are on and tell me about what your gear score is, I will make a level one toon and in ten mins will have the armory of at least 1 player for you to arena with

And I fail to see yours. MMORPGs have always been about grinding to varying degrees. then i will spell it out for you, WoW =/= other MMOs. Its that lack of grinding that makes its so popular (not trying to attribute that as the only reason). If you want the best gear based soley on grinding, (you clearly do) you need to find another MMO

It is the FPS-style arenas that are the aberration, not the other way around. how is the arena system, which is more than common in mmo's an aberration? The gearing based on skill not time is a pretty clear aberration from early MMOs, but arenas and PvP in general has been around forever

You strike me as someone who has never played an MMO before WoW and wants it to be like Halo with more elaborate costumes. I would assume if you have as much MMO experience as you act like, you wouldnt be calling arenas an aberration- but its all worthless arguing anyways becuase WoW got to where it is today by being wow not by being everquest

You seem to be under the impression that I love BGs and are advocating them as the be-all end-all alternative to arenas. I'm not, and I never gave that impression. (In fact I expressed a preference for non-instanced PvP early in my post.) yes but like I told chantress Im not here to change your mind on the subject- thats not the point of a debate

Just covering all bases

You're right, it always has been to some degree. But in arenas where everyone enters with every CD up, they become more important. I'm not necessarily complaining about this, just pointing out some ways in which the arbitrary format of arenas affects gameplay. and in battlegrounds you cannot rely on having your CDs at all times

making battlegrounds an arbitrary form of pvp by the same train of logic

Ok now you're just being disingenuous. Anyone who has been in both venues knows that LoS is far more important in the small confines of the arena than it is in the BGs. If this had any truth to it, it would be because BGs are goal driven (cap the flag, kill the NPC, destroy the wall) as opposed to kill the other player. If someone starts LoSing you in a BG many players say, "F*ck it!, I'm going over here"

Also, the size of arenas doesn't make LoSing any more or less useful- LoSing generally takes place withen 10 yards of the other player and never takes place beyond 40 yards

Sure, you may occasionally find yourself running around, say, one of the huts in WSG. But the entire match doesn't center around the hut. The fight moves. Sometimes LoS is a factor, sometimes it's not. Because the goal of the game isn't kill the obnoxious LoSer, its cap the flag

Again, maybe you have no problem with this. My point is that it's completely arbitrary. you really need to look up that word. Every aspect of the game is arbitrary. Blizz has gone out of their way to make it that way.

I didn't say anyone was forcing me, or that I had to have the best gear. My statement was a conditional one: if you want the best gear.... Again, this is an MMORPG not a FPS. and who said my you was referring to Gnostik?

this is a debate on a public forum, there is an audience

There's no inherent reason why the best arena players should also get the best gear except that in the absence of rated BGs it is the most effective way to hand out PvP gear based on skill and not a grind

thereby increasing the performance gap between them and those below. A common theme in MMOs that WoW has not abandoned (yet)

You're right, though the "almost-best" gear is usually available through some sort of grind. Like heroic dailys, you can get a full set of furious without rating requirements by doing them

I'm fine with that. to bad most players aren't

My point is not that I want easier access to the best PvP gear. My point is that when the gateway to that gear is arena, arena becomes the "real" PvP, Becuase it, by definition, is the most rudimentary form of that term. Also: arenas are the only rated form of PvP. The best PvE gear comes from the hardest PvE encounters, the best PvP gear comes from the hardest PvP encounters. If you want either of those things from grinding, then find a new mmo blizzard could care less about what the minority thinks. the minority doesn't make them filthy rich

and other PvP gets pushed to the wayside. to bad they don't award the best PvP gear based on ratings and honor

.
.
.
.
OWAIT! they totally do

And that, further, the "real" PvP in this game has turned into a very quirky system of cage matches that's uncharacteristic of MMORPGs historically. WoW =/= everquest

Post by goshadstep2lose

I have sufficient arena experience to know that if my healer can get CC'd i can get 'burst ed' down with over 800 resilience wearing a mixture of furious and relentless gear and a couple of pieces deadly.

And its YOU that has the 'e-boner' for me by having me on your profile! yeah, go sit down. except I dont go out of my way to post my feelings for you in a thread that clearly has nothing to do with them

Goshad: Arenas...
otherposter: BGs...
Goshad: Arenas...
otherposter: BGs...
Goshad: Arenas...
Chantress: goshad I dont like you, btw rogues are still OP!

and, just so you know, even if the rogues out there feel hard done by by blizzard with Dks and pallys, and even if it is argueable that rogues aren't remotley OP against them, the one comment you always here from all classes, is
'god i despise rogues'.

All I'm doing is speaking for them - and I know there are plenty of those guys out there, because I pvp every day. I know- all these guys have heard about the great chantress and come from far and wide to plead with him to bring their message to the Rogue controlled Blizzard design team... and if they wont listen? THEN THEY MUST DO BATTLE!

On a serious note: I can only describe your Jesus complex as cringe-worthy

Post by 269869

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by Gnostik

Why would you assume I don't like balanced combat?

Because of your previous statment, it was a reasonable conclusion

Sorry, but I don't find it reasonable that when I say "instanced PvP is a bad idea" you conclude it's because I don't want the combat to be balanced. I guess you're reasoning went like this: he doesn't like instanced PvP, so he must like world PvP. And world PvP is often unbalanced, so he must like unbalanced PvP!

That obviously doesn't follow, and world PvP doesn't have to be unbalanced anyway. (Just as an example you could have a system where NPCs spawn to fill out the side which is outnumbered, or you could simply give out a combat buff like in Wintergrasp. There are any number of options.)

As for the rest of your post it basically consists of theories on why WoW is successful and assertions that your views are the majority's views. I'll keep it short by ignoring both.

@#$% poor analogy, as we are comparing two forms of PvP, and you only use one form of cricketThis poster has won the thread

Except no, I wasn't comparing two forms of PvP. I'm simply saying I don't like arenas, not trying to prove the superiority or awesomeness of BGs.

To use a different analogy, let's say I love to play poker. I have liked pretty much every game I come across - hold 'em, high-lo, raz - except five card draw. There's something about the specific way that that form of poker plays out that I just don't like. (To take it a bit further, then imagine that the WSOP main event only featured five card draw. I would be justifiably annoyed....)

Anyway, I'm starting to sound self-indulgent. I mean, who cares what I don't like? Suffice it to say a good number of other players probably agree with me (though I won't throw out baseless assertions about whether that's a minority, majority, plurality, or whatever.)

Post by 248538

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by 115964

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by 320717

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by goshadstep2lose

Sorry, but I don't find it reasonable that when I say "instanced PvP is a bad idea" you conclude it's because I don't want the combat to be balanced. I guess you're reasoning went like this: he doesn't like instanced PvP, so he must like world PvP. And world PvP is often unbalanced, so he must like unbalanced PvP! I really don't know why you are pushing this point so hard. If you just don't like PvP, then you don't like PvP

the gearing doesn't concern you, the playing doesn't concern you, this thread doesn't concern you

That obviously doesn't follow, and world PvP doesn't have to be unbalanced anyway. (Just as an example you could have a system where NPCs spawn to fill out the side which is outnumbered, or you could simply give out a combat buff like in Wintergrasp. There are any number of options.) and a tenacity in world zone X wouldn't make leveling too easy would it? There is a reason the farmable NPCs disappear during WG battles

As for the rest of your post it basically consists of theories on why WoW is successful and assertions that your views are the majority's views. I'll keep it short by ignoring both. also know as dodging, but in response- blizzard is a buisiness, they are hear to make money, and how do they do that? by appeasing the majority

if the majority of players had their gaming ruined or even harmed by arenas they would be removed, or at least had their gearing down graded

Except no, I wasn't comparing two forms of PvP. I'm simply saying I don't like arenas, not trying to prove the superiority or awesomeness of BGs. except yes, thats what this thread is about, thats what this thread has been about
Arenas and its effect on PvP (which for everyone else is BGs)

As to your analogy and this ever present "I just dont like pvp" mentality you are pressing- If you didnt like sports in the first place, your friends wouldn't expect you to, or could care less if you did, enjoy cricket.

To use a different analogy, let's say I love to play poker. I have liked pretty much every game I come across - hold 'em, high-lo, raz - except five card draw. There's something about the specific way that that form of poker plays out that I just don't like. (To take it a bit further, then imagine that the WSOP main event only featured five card draw. I would be justifiably annoyed....) another crap analogy- arenas aren't the only way to get the best gear, the is also and always has been raiding

but apples to oranges

Anyway, I'm starting to sound self-indulgent. I mean, who cares what I don't like? Suffice it to say a good number of other players probably agree with me (though I won't throw out baseless assertions about whether that's a minority, majority, plurality, or whatever.) you wont have to, see my argument above

tldr: you are now going out of your way to say you just don't like PvP (other than world?) therefore arenas in no way affect you or any player that shares your opinion, regardless of minority/majority

Post by goshadstep2lose

I dislike pseudo interlectual arrogance and unpleasant smugness, well . and it looks like I'm not the only one. whom are you referring to? Me and Gnostik are having an honest to goodness debate on a thought provoking issue. I would insult you again on your persistence to avoid the discussion with the majority of these posts being about your feelings for me.
But we can see how arguing with me worked out for you last time

But i think your reaction speaks for itself. People do not share your opinion - GET OVER IT. you really need to look at your first post in the thread and consider how this info applies to you
I don't even like arena's either, I only do it to attempt to get the best and gear maybe grind an achievement or two.(you are trying to hard to make buddy-buddy with the other poster)

and I'm only reporting back what I hear in bg every day. Maybe you should try it. remember what i said last time about anecdotal crap? yea well it still holds true; no one cares

Post by Gnostik

I really don't know why you are pushing this point so hard. If you just don't like PvP, then you don't like PvP

the gearing doesn't concern you, the playing doesn't concern you, this thread doesn't concern you
As to your analogy and this ever present "I just dont like pvp" mentality you are pressing- If you didnt like sports in the first place, your friends wouldn't expect you to, or could care less if you did, enjoy cricket.

Again, I'm not sure how you are reading what you are into my comments. When I say things like "I generally enjoy most PvP, I just don't like the cage matches that are arena", and you then say that I have an "ever present 'I just don't like PvP' mentality", I'm not sure how to respond to that. I don't know how much clearer I can make my position.

I have played MMORPGs since Meridian 59 (which I would bet nobody reading has ever even heard of.) After that it was EQ, then UO, then DAoC, then WoW (though I tried many smaller titles along the way, e.g. Anarchy Online.) In every online game I play I spend the majority of my time PvPing (aside from any level grind.) And even though imbalanced fights (whether due to a disparity in gear, level, or whatever) turn me off, I stick with the genre since I still prefer it to, say, FPS, where the fights would be more balanced, but it would be a totally different game.

So you couldn't be more wrong. I love the challenge of PvP in an MMORPG and I have for many years.

DAoC was built as a PvP game from the ground up, and their PvP actually had consequences for the game world. Battles were often epic, but there were also smaller scale field skirmishes in certain zones. When you were fighting in a certain battle there was a reason for it. Such a system makes the most sense to me in an online fantasy game. It follows naturally from other characteristics of the genre.

It also makes sense to have some sort of colosseum/arena/gladiator type combat, and to give out rewards. But to me this type of thing should be a side show. Instead Blizzard has made it the main event.

I guess, the more I think about it, it makes sense that it should be this way. WoW wasn't designed ground-up to be a PvP game. In the article he says that the idea it could be an "e-sport" occurred to them late in the game, so to speak. So it's not surprising that arenas feel like a tacked on, low-overhead solution to "the PvP problem"; cuz that's just what they are.

Here's hoping the next big MMO will actually incorporate PvP combat into the game world in some meaningful way, instead of adding it on as an instanced afterthought post-launch.