Options

Why not offer 2v2 Arenas?

MarzzoMarzzo Member, Leader of Men, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited July 2020 in General Discussion
Currently it seems only 1v1, 3v3 and 5v5 arenas are planned. How come 2v2 is overlooked? Playing a game togheter with only 1 friend is extremely common and I don't see why 2v2 should not be offered at all. I mean, in many other games 2v2 is immensely more popular than 5v5 and 1v1. Many players even prefer to focus on it!

I love 3v3 but sometimes just chilling with a single friend doing 2v2 is very fun and laid back. It has a slower pace than 3v3 while still offering you to play with a friend. When I feel like just playing for fun and start playing quickly with a friend 2v2 is the best way to do that. It is convenient. finding a third player is sometimes a hassle.

Also 2v2 opens up the option for viable non healer combos. In 2v2, you can usually pair anything you want and don't be heavily handicapped for not bringing a healer/support. This helps simply jumping in to games with strangers and friends without worrying all that much about combos.

Why not just offer 2v2 in combination with the other sizes? I believe you should offer it and don't see a reason why not.

Also, do we even need 1v1 arenas, when dueling is a thing? If you want them, do not make these rated, it is stupid. Please, do not have a single piece of content or achivement connected to 1v1. It will backlash like hell.

What do you think?
«13456

Comments

  • Options
    NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    The main reason I can think is that if they offer 1v1, 2v3, 3v3 and 5v5, the same argument could be made for 4v4, 6v6, and 7v7.

    The intention isn't to have them cross server unless that becomes a requirement, as far as I know. If this is the case, there needs to be as few options as possible, otherwise everyone will be queuing for different arena types and no one will get a fight.

    If they do make them cross server, I can see this being a perfectly valid thing to ask for.
  • Options
    JahlonJahlon Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha One
    Because 2s are a lot harder to balance, for all the reasons you already stated.

    2v2 allows you to run a non healer pair, and usually have enough burst to over power a healers output. So you essentially build a tier that healers avoid.

    Or in the flip side you create a situation where a 2 healer team is impossible to kill because no pairing can produce enough output to burst one healer down. The healers either slowly wear you down, or they troll the arena and force you into maclx time matches.
    hpsmlCJ.jpg
    Make sure to check out Ashes 101
  • Options
    MarzzoMarzzo Member, Leader of Men, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    Jahlon wrote: »
    Because 2s are a lot harder to balance, for all the reasons you already stated.

    2v2 allows you to run a non healer pair, and usually have enough burst to over power a healers output. So you essentially build a tier that healers avoid.

    Or in the flip side you create a situation where a 2 healer team is impossible to kill because no pairing can produce enough output to burst one healer down. The healers either slowly wear you down, or they troll the arena and force you into maclx time matches.

    Who cares about balancing 2v2. Its not like 1v1 will be balanced at all. Obviously they will balance the game around 3v3 and larger pvp battles. 2v2 does not need to be rated, but can still be offered.
  • Options
    MarzzoMarzzo Member, Leader of Men, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    edited July 2020
    noaani wrote: »
    The main reason I can think is that if they offer 1v1, 2v3, 3v3 and 5v5, the same argument could be made for 4v4, 6v6, and 7v7.

    The intention isn't to have them cross server unless that becomes a requirement, as far as I know. If this is the case, there needs to be as few options as possible, otherwise everyone will be queuing for different arena types and no one will get a fight.

    If they do make them cross server, I can see this being a perfectly valid thing to ask for.

    4v4 and 7v7 has such a small following that I dont see how this is the same thing.

    2v2 is in comparison to 1v1 and 5v5, extremly popular and maybe even THE most popular form of arena gameplay for casual players. For that reason, 2v2 should be offered even if it is not rated or rated seperatly.
  • Options
    tugowartugowar Member, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    Why is 1v1 a thing? That implies that you have to balance one class versus eight other classes. Otherwise, there’s people who will never even be able to participate in that.

    Virtue is the only good.
  • Options
    NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    Marzzo wrote: »
    noaani wrote: »
    The main reason I can think is that if they offer 1v1, 2v3, 3v3 and 5v5, the same argument could be made for 4v4, 6v6, and 7v7.

    The intention isn't to have them cross server unless that becomes a requirement, as far as I know. If this is the case, there needs to be as few options as possible, otherwise everyone will be queuing for different arena types and no one will get a fight.

    If they do make them cross server, I can see this being a perfectly valid thing to ask for.

    4v4 and 7v7 has such a small following that I dont see how this is the same thing.

    2v2 is in comparison to 1v1 and 5v5, extremly popular and maybe even THE most popular form of arena gameplay for casual players. For that reason, 2v2 should be offered even if it is not rated or rated seperatly.

    The point is - they have to make a call somewhere, and that call has to include the fewest number of variations possible. The more variations they have, the fewer people there are participating in each variation.

    It may well be that 2v2 is the most popular form of arena PvP in terms of pre-made groups, I neither know nor honestly care. However, that is as much of a reason to not have it as it is a reason to have it. If they only offer 1v1 and 3v3, people that come along with 2 players wanting to group together would then have to rely on a third person - and that is completely consistent with how the game is being developed.

    This game is doing what it can to essentially force people to work with others in situations they otherwise wouldn't, and if the develoeprs can facilitate that at the same time as reducing the options of arena combat (and thus preventing the arena population being spread too thin) then I can see how the developers would look at that as a win/win.



  • Options
    tugowartugowar Member, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    Tsukasa wrote: »
    1v1 are rock-paper-scissor balance.
    Balance will be large group focused, so 2v2s and above don't matter @tugowar why are they a thing, but not 2v2?

    I think we’re saying the same thing?

    They have said they are not going to individually balance classes against each other, so it doesn’t make sense why they would even have a 1V1 arena. 2v2 allows for a lot of different combinations with inherent (in) balance issues. That should be the smallest size.

    Virtue is the only good.
  • Options
    tugowar wrote: »
    Why is 1v1 a thing? That implies that you have to balance one class versus eight other classes. Otherwise, there’s people who will never even be able to participate in that.

    mano a mano
  • Options
    DamoklesDamokles Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    Just make your own illegal underground arena on your server.
    Find a place in the middle of nowhere, post its coordinates on the forum and host your own tournament or something with price money.
    a6XEiIf.gif
  • Options
    NagashNagash Member, Leader of Men, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    maybe the colosseum in military nodes will let you do 2v2 fights
    nJ0vUSm.gif

    The dead do not squabble as this land’s rulers do. The dead have no desires, petty jealousies or ambitions. A world of the dead is a world at peace
  • Options
    AtamaAtama Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    You can’t have a two player team because they would need a chaperone.

    We want respectable arenas here people, not dens of smut. :/
     
    Hhak63P.png
  • Options
    I feel like WoW managed to do it correctly in that retrospect

    2v2 was the most popular of the lot even without the arena rewards

    And 3v3 was put down when you wanted to get competitive

    Still don’t see the point in 1v1 when dueling available

    They should just make it 2v2 / 5v5 (less rewards) 3v3 max rewards, titles, gladiator etc
    rvid9f6vp7vl.png
  • Options
    RepkarRepkar Member, Leader of Men, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    Jahlon wrote: »
    Because 2s are a lot harder to balance, for all the reasons you already stated.

    2v2 allows you to run a non healer pair, and usually have enough burst to over power a healers output. So you essentially build a tier that healers avoid.

    Or in the flip side you create a situation where a 2 healer team is impossible to kill because no pairing can produce enough output to burst one healer down. The healers either slowly wear you down, or they troll the arena and force you into maclx time matches.

    You balance 2v2 by making it only healer/dps healer/tank combos, and ban double dps, yes," player choice unfairness reasonings," but it is what would need to happen, you wouldn't bring 3 dps in on a 3v3 match, why should you bring 2 dps on a 2v2 match.

    As a PVP mainly focused player, I agree with 2v2.
  • Options
    MarzzoMarzzo Member, Leader of Men, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    edited February 2022
    Repkar wrote: »
    Jahlon wrote: »
    Because 2s are a lot harder to balance, for all the reasons you already stated.

    2v2 allows you to run a non healer pair, and usually have enough burst to over power a healers output. So you essentially build a tier that healers avoid.

    Or in the flip side you create a situation where a 2 healer team is impossible to kill because no pairing can produce enough output to burst one healer down. The healers either slowly wear you down, or they troll the arena and force you into maclx time matches.

    You balance 2v2 by making it only healer/dps healer/tank combos, and ban double dps, yes," player choice unfairness reasonings," but it is what would need to happen, you wouldn't bring 3 dps in on a 3v3 match, why should you bring 2 dps on a 2v2 match.

    As a PVP mainly focused player, I agree with 2v2.

    In many games, double DPS has historically taken a majority of top 100 spots on many occasions. While not common, they are still viable.
  • Options
    NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    This is a near 2 year old necro.
    Repkar wrote: »
    You balance 2v2 by making it only healer/dps healer/tank combos, and ban double dps, yes.
    Artificial limitations like this are exactly what Intrepid are trying to avoid in this game.

    Since the arena is essentially a side show, rather than anything important to the game, if they did add more options, there is essentially no way they would add restrictions like this.
  • Options
    Noaani wrote: »
    This is a near 2 year old necro.
    Repkar wrote: »
    You balance 2v2 by making it only healer/dps healer/tank combos, and ban double dps, yes.
    Artificial limitations like this are exactly what Intrepid are trying to avoid in this game.

    Since the arena is essentially a side show, rather than anything important to the game, if they did add more options, there is essentially no way they would add restrictions like this.

    That is a bit unfair, I don’t see why both PvE & PvP can’t be equally focused on? Most of my WoW life was spent in the arena and gearing up for it since 2007

    What they should do is just the same as WoW
    2v2 with less rewards and then 1v1 for duelling

    I just see no point in a rated 1v1 arena? What do healers do? It will just be long boring games

    I also don’t know why double dps in 2v2 would even be an issue
    As it was the most fun when you wanted to go in there and not have long boring 30min+ matches

    3v3 will always be the main focus for competitive play, just hope 2v2 is added as-well even if it gives much less rewards

    rvid9f6vp7vl.png
  • Options
    NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    edited February 2022
    Pyrolol wrote: »

    That is a bit unfair, I don’t see why both PvE & PvP can’t be equally focused on?
    They are.

    The PvP focus in Ashes is open world, not arena.

    The arena is there as a non-progression sideshow. The focus for PvP is in regards to the corruption system, caravans, guild and node wars and sieges.
  • Options
    Noaani wrote: »
    Pyrolol wrote: »

    That is a bit unfair, I don’t see why both PvE & PvP can’t be equally focused on?
    They are.

    The PvP focus in Ashes is open world, not arena.

    The arena is there as a non-progression sideshow. The focus for PvP is in regards to the corruption system, caravans, guild and node wars and sieges.

    Yeah but once tournaments comes into play
    That will be when arena shines my guy 🥰
    rvid9f6vp7vl.png
  • Options
    NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    Pyrolol wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Pyrolol wrote: »

    That is a bit unfair, I don’t see why both PvE & PvP can’t be equally focused on?
    They are.

    The PvP focus in Ashes is open world, not arena.

    The arena is there as a non-progression sideshow. The focus for PvP is in regards to the corruption system, caravans, guild and node wars and sieges.

    Yeah but once tournaments comes into play
    That will be when arena shines my guy 🥰

    There is no suggestion of PvP tournaments outside of the military node mayor contest - which is not fought between player characters.

    Why would a game that is all about open world conflict and cooperation put in arena tournaments?
  • Options
    Noaani wrote: »
    Pyrolol wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Pyrolol wrote: »

    That is a bit unfair, I don’t see why both PvE & PvP can’t be equally focused on?
    They are.

    The PvP focus in Ashes is open world, not arena.

    The arena is there as a non-progression sideshow. The focus for PvP is in regards to the corruption system, caravans, guild and node wars and sieges.

    Yeah but once tournaments comes into play
    That will be when arena shines my guy 🥰

    There is no suggestion of PvP tournaments outside of the military node mayor contest - which is not fought between player characters.

    Why would a game that is all about open world conflict and cooperation put in arena tournaments?

    Still don’t see why rated arena with leaderboards, titles, rewards not be taken just as serious if not more as unbalanced world pvp where eventually you get outnumbered?

    Makes zero sense, clearly you have never gotten that high in anything competitive to be so against it


    rvid9f6vp7vl.png
  • Options
    NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    edited February 2022
    Pyrolol wrote: »

    Still don’t see why rated arena with leaderboards, titles, rewards not be taken just as serious if not more as unbalanced world pvp where eventually you get outnumbered?

    Makes zero sense, clearly you have never gotten that high in anything competitive to be so against it

    The idea of this game is not to lock yourself in some room with a set number of other people and pretend to fight to see who of just the few of you in there at that time is the best.

    The idea of Ashes is that you world PvP is unbalanced and you can get outnumbered.

    The idea is to bring along more friends. The idea is to come back later, when they don't expect you. The idea is to attack their friends, attack their resources, attack them while they are attacking others. Attack them while they are travelling to the arena, or to the siege.

    You are right in that I have never "gotten that high in anything competitive" is by anything competitive you are limiting it to instanced PvP.

    However, I have "gotten that high" in instanced PvE, and in open world - well, everything.

    Ashes will have an arena. If that is what you want, cool.

    Just expect it to be a sideshow to the real game.
  • Options
    Noaani wrote: »
    Pyrolol wrote: »

    Still don’t see why rated arena with leaderboards, titles, rewards not be taken just as serious if not more as unbalanced world pvp where eventually you get outnumbered?

    Makes zero sense, clearly you have never gotten that high in anything competitive to be so against it

    The idea of this game is not to lock yourself in some room with a set number of other people and pretend to fight to see who of just the few of you in there at that time is the best.

    The idea of Ashes is that you world PvP is unbalanced and you can get outnumbered.

    The idea is to bring along more friends. The idea is to come back later, when they don't expect you. The idea is to attack their friends, attack their resources, attack them while they are attacking others. Attack them while they are travelling to the arena, or to the siege.

    You are right in that I have never "gotten that high in anything competitive" is by anything competitive you are limiting it to instanced PvP.

    However, I have "gotten that high" in instanced PvE, and in open world - well, everything.

    Ashes will have an arena. If that is what you want, cool.

    Just expect it to be a sideshow to the real game.

    My point still stands, get rid of 1v1 and add 2v2 for option of double dps
    You also get your world PvP which everyone will be taking part on anyway
    Just don't see why it needs much attention as its pretty much a given when you run out into the open world for questing, dailies etc

    Hence, why they can delegate resources for the arena to not just be a side show and instead a major part of the PvP world just like in WoW
    rvid9f6vp7vl.png
  • Options
    NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    edited February 2022
    Pyrolol wrote: »
    Hence, why they can delegate resources for the arena to not just be a side show and instead a major part of the PvP world just like in WoW
    But they don't want that.

    They want you out in the world. If you have an open world, and you want to focus on that open world, you don't then want to also encourage players to spend long periods of time in instances (PvE or PvP). Short periods in such instances is fine, but you want people to focus their time on the open world.

    Ashes is not trying to be WoW. It is, if anything, trying to be the opposite of WoW - to fix the negative aspects of MMO's that Blizzard introduced in WoW.
  • Options
    Noaani wrote: »
    Pyrolol wrote: »
    Hence, why they can delegate resources for the arena to not just be a side show and instead a major part of the PvP world just like in WoW
    But they don't want that.

    They want you out in the world. If you have an open world, and you want to focus on that open world, you don't then want to also encourage players to spend long periods of time in instances (PvE or PvP). Short periods in such instances is fine, but you want people to focus their time on the open world.

    Ashes is not trying to be WoW. It is, if anything, trying to be the opposite of WoW - to fix the negative aspects of MMO's that Blizzard introduced in WoW.

    First of all, why wouldn't they take aspects from one of the most successful MMO's for almost 2 decades? (not including the most recent expac that just went down to the ground)

    Secondly, if you ever played WoW back in the day, TBC, WOTLK you would have experienced the open world and warfare that got brought with it.

    Majority of your time was spent doing dailies, quests, dungeons for gold and gear, so with this time spent in the open world everyday ALL you experienced was open world PvP. It became mini wars and non stop ganking / group ganking. Finally, when you had enough viable gear you would enter the arena. BUT you still had to do dailies (even after you were competing in arena) it never ended, which mean world PvP never ended. You are wrong when you say "all people would just be sitting in instanced arena"

    So they can easily concentrate on the Arena and for competitive players since World PvP would not be hard for them to work on and most of the time will be spent in the open world until you can start climbing the ladder
    rvid9f6vp7vl.png
  • Options
    NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    Pyrolol wrote: »

    First of all, why wouldn't they take aspects from one of the most successful MMO's for almost 2 decades? (not including the most recent expac that just went down to the ground)
    Because that is not the game that Steven is making.

    If you think that WoW ever had open world content that can be compared to Ashes, I'm not sure what to tell you...
  • Options
    Noaani wrote: »
    Pyrolol wrote: »

    First of all, why wouldn't they take aspects from one of the most successful MMO's for almost 2 decades? (not including the most recent expac that just went down to the ground)
    Because that is not the game that Steven is making.

    If you think that WoW ever had open world content that can be compared to Ashes, I'm not sure what to tell you...

    Mate, I was literally arguing your point of "people spending all the time in an instanced pvp" and just proved that you were wrong with the older WoW expacs
    never said it was the same open world concept at all, what im saying is you will have your silly open world unbalanced, outnumbered world pvp

    also #bring in 2v2 arena
    rvid9f6vp7vl.png
  • Options
    NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    Pyrolol wrote: »
    Mate, I was literally arguing your point of "people spending all the time in an instanced pvp"
    I specifically said PvP OR PvE instances.

    WoW dungeons are all PvE instances.

    Why would you use WoW sending players in to instances in an attempt to point out how WoW had open world content?

    Do you just think everything that isn't an arena is open world?
  • Options
    Noaani wrote: »
    Pyrolol wrote: »
    Mate, I was literally arguing your point of "people spending all the time in an instanced pvp"
    I specifically said PvP OR PvE instances.

    WoW dungeons are all PvE instances.

    Why would you use WoW sending players in to instances in an attempt to point out how WoW had open world content?

    Do you just think everything that isn't an arena is open world?

    You can’t at all be serious rn

    rvid9f6vp7vl.png
Sign In or Register to comment.