Why instanced PVP Arenas are NOT meaningless (And why they are needed for the game)

ArchivedUser

CyanideInsanity said:

Simply having an area thats straight up pvp is the exact opposite of what I'm trying to get at. Ironically it seems its more of what the no arena pvp crowd seems to want aside from sieges. If anyone has a link to IS talking about having some objective battlegrounds that aren't the aforementioned please share, or point in the general direction.

I'm not aware of there being a "no arena pvp crowd" for Ashes since Ashes has arenas in the game design.
In Ashes, a battleground is an open world space where players auto-flag as combatants and do not gain Corruption for participating in PvP combat.
I suppose caravans are some kind of mix between manual-flagging and auto-flagging.

Open world arenas seems like a separate topic since the title of this topic specifically states "Why Instanced Arenas Are Not Meaningless".
Ashes already has instanced arenas, so there really is nothing to talk about here - everyone already agrees.

You will probably get more meaningful discussion in a topic about whether open world arenas should also exist.
Although, I don't expect a lot of people to state that open world arenas would be problematic.

ArchivedUser

Grimseethe said:

Small instanced pvp is the only true show of skill.
Dueling and arenas are all that I will be doing.

well thing is, you might have a good class for Arena and shit at anything else.

its not an indicator of pve effectiveness or group scaled pvp.

ArchivedUser

well it IS technically meaningless,

because whatever happens in an arena has 0 affect on the world/POI/ZOI

no effect = no meaning.

even a guy gathering in the wild would have more meaning than a dude fighting in an arena.

ArchivedUser

Im quite sure that a team ranked high at arena ladders will have Caravan protection requests pouring in.

Actions not affecting the game market doesnt make them meaningless.
In arenas players learn combat mechanics and to keep an eye on their team mates and opponents.
These are skills that are useful in all shapes of combat.

Then there is the question, what are games for?
Are games here so u can affect as many players as possible or to offer joy no matter the type of gameplay and to perhaps let u improve urself.

Only because you dont like some content in a game doesnt diminish the joy in it for others.

ArchivedUser

Blackhearted said:

Im quite sure that a team ranked high at arena ladders will have Caravan protection requests pouring in.

Actions not affecting the game market doesnt make them meaningless.
In arenas players learn combat mechanics and to keep an eye on their team mates and opponents.
These are skills that are useful in all shapes of combat.

All of which would happen with non instanced arenas as well.

ArchivedUser

Joy for individual characters doesn't necessarily mean it impacts the rest of Verra.

But, the arena battles that determine the leaders of Military nodes will impact the rest of Verra, so we know that some arena battles will be "meaningful".

In Wiz101, I was trained in combat by an elite arena squad even though I never fought in arenas. I frequently got requests from other players to help them defeat bosses that they could not defeat without my help.
So... it may be possible that something similar may occur in Ashes.
Especially if players are able to learn how to synergize their favorite abilities with the favorite abilities of other players or other classes, in general... but, that remains to be seen.

ArchivedUser

Grimseethe said:

Small instanced pvp is the only true show of skill.
Dueling and arenas are all that I will be doing.

So what draws you to arena pvp in an MMO as opposed to other games where the whole game is about pvp in some arena?

ArchivedUser

I agree with nearly everyone here, i don´t understand why you are arguing.

Arenas:

• Arenas are a good controlled enviroment where you can test your skills pretty fast.
• Arenas are in general a good enviroment to test out new builds or learn how to fight agianst all sorts of other builds.
• In Arenas there is (in most games) Matchmaking to ensure you are fighting against equally skilled players.
• Also people who like it can shove their skill in everyones face by climbing up the arena leaderboards.

Open-World PvP:

• Open-World PvP is not controlled and thus has a lot more variety. (1vs3, 2vs5, 3vs20, ....) Also complete Open-World instead of small Arenas. And also it has an impact on the world.
• Since it is not controlled you will have a hard time to find out if your build is "good" and if you are actually skilled. Because if you always run into smaller or larger groups: Did you win/lose beause you were in a bigger or smaller group? Did you win/lose because your good or bad at PvP? Did you win/lose because your opponents had basic or legendary gear?
• While Open-World Leaderboards may be interesting you can´t really shove it in anyones face. Because your Open-World-PvP rank greatly depends on your party size (bigger party = more successfull fights) and also a little bit on luck (if you just run into noob-caravans you will probably mostly win).

ArchivedUser

batailleuse said:

well it IS technically meaningless,

because whatever happens in an arena has 0 affect on the world/POI/ZOI

no effect = no meaning.

even a guy gathering in the wild would have more meaning than a dude fighting in an arena.

Nothing has meaning but that which we create.

Which means that this argument about meaning is meaningless.

But directly to your point: If gear or pvp rewards can be gained from instanced PvP, then geared well practiced PvPers will be the result of these arena, and that will have all kinds of impact on the world at large. Not to mention Military node's leadership is determined by a deathmatch style instanced PvP arena. So there is one example of it having explicitly direct impact on the world.