Instanced PvP ?

Battlegrounds and arena?
I do hope you put in instanced PvP
The game has great interest to me and that is a rarity after 25 years of MMOs. I do not know much about it yet but it does interest me.

As a MMO player since the days of UO, I do have some suggestions.If you put in Battlegrounds and Arena. Do it the same way Guild Wars 2 did it. Log in Day 1, go into a lobby, spec your char, pick your gear and enchantments and then queue.

It accomplishes a couple big things
1. People with very little game time, such as an hour or 2 a night, will be able to log in and get their pvp fix. Think games like CS. Most people do not have 6-8 hours a day to devote like WoW ended up requiring. Im married and have kids. I already have a job. I do not need a 2nd job just to farm the stuff i need to do PvP.

2. It ends all debate over skill vs gear. Put in every item in game on a menu and let players choose when they go into instanced pvp. Then nobody can say I got beat because you outgear me.

Ill be frank, if this is another WoW/UO., Id love to play but sadly I will have to pass. I have discovred as Blizzard is also discovering, most people these days just do not want to grind any longer. Life is to short and demanding to be spent logged into a game all day every day trying to farm yet another item just to be able to compete.

If you do BGs. Please follow WoW/Rift standards for size /format/goals. Guild Wars bgs sucked tbh.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

wherediditrun

Noaani wrote: »

Yes, that's right. Open PvP is the REAL PvP, as opposed to some made up, contrived set piece.

Open PvP is dirty, gritty, . Arena PvP is sterile and contrived.

The entire game is contrived set piece, gear advantage is contrived set piece. Level progression is contrived set piece, pretty much all game systems are you focusing on certain pieces over others is expression of preference.

Not sure why everyone must abide by your preference. It's not like there is no room for arena pvp in pvx game. Have it, enjoy it, knock yourself out. I'll join in the brawl too.

But I also want to have an arena PvP to log in perhaps on sunday morning when nothing else interesting is happening or my guild is mainly logged off for example. And to enjoy the mastery of the spec as a spec, not part of PvX game.

I would stand with you if it was harming the main game integrity. But it doesn't. Player base fragmentation is another argument, but it lies on false assumption that you can force players to go through grind and thus having more folk to interact in main game by offering arena pvp as end game carrot. That doesn't pan out, people simply won't bother. You gain nothing. But you gain a lot by offering venues in the game just to hang out and socialize even if it's not part of the main game loop. In pvp arenas facilitate subcultures of players to hang out.

Noaani

wherediditrun wrote: »

I would stand with you if it was harming the main game integrity.

PvP in Ashes is supposed to actually matter. This means resources lost, experience debt, or item loss.

An arena without that same loss would damage the integrity of the game.

Classes are specifically not balanced around 1v1. The game is balanced around full groups of 8 players.

An arena that attempted any form of balance in 1v1 will damage the integrity of the game.

The game is all about open world, meeting new players as you ruin around the games world.

An arena where you queue, fight and queue again would damage the integrity of the game.

I take is, from your above statement, that you now agree with me.

wherediditrun

Noaani wrote: »

PvP in Ashes is supposed to actually matter. This means resources lost, experience debt, or item loss.

If it's part of character progression, yes, I see how that's relevant and I agree. Arenas are not part of character progression. The only progression you get is elo (ranking). And reward simply corresponds with the risk, that is losing elo. So it already exists in arenas.

Noaani wrote: »

An arena without that same loss would damage the integrity of the game.

I just explain how it wouldn't. Arenas are outside of main game loop. Nothing changes about your PvX.

Noaani wrote: »

Classes are specifically not balanced around 1v1. The game is balanced around full groups of 8 players.

Great, make 8 vs 8 teams as main mode with official rankins. And perhaps offer funs and lulzies outside of main mode as random pub to hang out. Guilds could take part as well, delegating their 'flagman' troops.

Noaani wrote: »

The game is all about open world, meeting new players as you ruin around the games world.

Nothing changes about that. Arenas can be integrated in game world lore wise easily. By being, well arenas. Gladiator coliseum was a thing. There is a lot of other ways to meet players in MMO's other than outside world content. A lot of games provide a lot of side activities to engage with when nothing interesting is happening at the time.

Noaani wrote: »

An arena where you queue, fight and queue again would damage the integrity of the game.

I take is, from your above statement, that you now agree with me.

I would, but you haven't made a strong case for it.

The only argument I see which potentially "damages integrity" is that there will be another dimension based on which players will regard other players as forming 'elite'. Which often does not pertain with what some people call "hardcore".

Noaani

wherediditrun wrote: »

I just explain how it wouldn't. Arenas are outside of main game loop. Nothing changes about your PvX.

Yeah, arenas are outside of the main loop, that is the problem. It is PvP that doesn't matter, in a game where PvP is supposed to matter.

What you are trying to do is dilute the whole game down by saying that all the things that are what Ashes is supposed to be are only a thing in parts of the game, not in all of the game.

That is pretty much the actual definition of damaging the integrity of the game.

wherediditrun

Noaani wrote: »

Yeah, arenas are outside of the main loop, that is the problem. It is PvP that doesn't matter, in a game where PvP is supposed to matter.

I'm not saying that it does not matter. If it didn't matter I would not advocate it. What I'm saying is that it does not effect character progression in the main game loop.

There are a chance that someone who spends a lot of time in arena and actually trains to 'git gut' might beat you in open world through shear ability even while being few levels lower than you or ganked.

And generally the attacker get frustrated and pissed by that. In open world when risks are on the table people do not initiate hostilities unless they are pretty sure they can win the engagement. Frankly, I find it hilarious. On my old pc used to have all the grieving screens on class being OP or whatnot.

So do I get you right. You're worried that higher mechanical proficiency of the players will effect the outcomes of PvX engagement too much?

To that I've proposed solution how we can potentially integrate it into the PvX while not offering character progression. Through free lances / hirelings.

However the whole notion that mechanical proficiency is damaging to the game is .. quite baffling to me.

Or you had something else in mind. I'm not seeing the diluting here. You haven't explained how risks of PvX pvp are minimized. You still have to go through it to progress. Which leaves at only advantage we have, mechanical proficiency, which takes not only time, but how effectively time is used + talent, making it true exclusive attribute of the player.

Noaani

wherediditrun wrote: »

So do I get you right. You're worried that higher mechanical proficiency of the players will effect the outcomes of PvX engagement too much?

Not even close.

If anything, the opposite is true.

People used to playing in the arena will be completely at a loss when they are in open PvP and suddenly realize it isn't nvn, but rather xvx.

But this isn't my point, and has never been my point. This is simply your pre-coincieved notion that anyone against an arena must be shit at the game and so is scared of it. I have not mentioned anything along those lines, nor even suggested anything along those lines, and yet this is such a strong pre-concieved notion in your mind that it is all you can take away from any posts - even when there is nothing at all about it in said posts.

My issue with an arena is as stated - the game is supposed to be about an unrestriucted fight over resources, land, castles. Actual things (as actual as you can get in a computer game).

It is not supposed to be about sterile, staged match over some spot in some contrived ladder system (even for computer game standards).

Taking a game that is supposed to be about the former, and adding the latter, is killing the integrity of the game as a whole.

JustVine

If a PvP minigame is enough to significantly dilute the server and lower interaction with Ashes core content the game has bigger problems with it's content design and population. If the minigame fills such a significant niche for Ashes' Intended target audience , something has to be fundamentally looked at in it's core experience design.

It is far more likely such minigames will just pull in people who wouldn't normally be the games core audience. That's not a loss to the game though it is a technical dilution of the population. More money for the game and Intrepid and bodies for siege presumably. It's only a real problem if the devs cater to that audience at the sacrifice of the core audience.

Noaani

JustVine wrote: »

If a PvP minigame is enough to significantly dilute the server and lower interaction with Ashes core content the game has bigger problems with it's content design and population. If the minigame fills such a significant niche for Ashes' Intended target audience , something has to be fundamentally looked at in it's core experience design.

I've not even got up to arena PvP pulling players from open world content yet, honestly.

I agree it is a fairly minor concern, but it is still a valid concern.

While I agree that an arena is likely to pull in people that would not otherwise be the games core audience, that then leaves the question - is that a good thing?

Imagine you are an arena-centric player, and you go to Ashes. The first thing you notice is that there is absolutely no experience to be had in the arena (as per Steven). Then you observe a total absence of any attempt for class balance in the arena (as per Steven). Then you realize that there is also no gearing to be had via the arena (as per Steven).

All of a sudden, as an arena-centric player, you are left wondering what the hell you are playing, and are not likely to stay arounf very long at all. This is just going to result in more people saying "Ashes is shit, don't play it" to their friends, or on MMO forums and such.

I don't see that as a good thing for the game, and I assume most others wouldn't, either.

wherediditrun

Noaani wrote: »

Not even close.

If anything, the opposite is true.

People used to playing in the arena will be completely at a loss when they are in open PvP and suddenly realize it isn't nvn, but rather xvx.

If one only does arena sure. There is quite a bit more to consider in open environments. But it's generally easier to start from spec and training with people of your own level to progress optimally. Allows to be effective with your time as well as other bonuses like data sets for spec balances for the game as well as venue to socialize with people.

Noaani wrote: »

But this isn't my point, and has never been my point. This is simply your pre-coincieved notion that anyone against an arena must be shit at the game and so is scared of it. I have not mentioned anything along those lines, nor even suggested anything along those lines, and yet this is such a strong pre-concieved notion in your mind that it is all you can take away from any posts - even when there is nothing at all about it in said posts.

Yeah. It is pre-conceived. Not like there is no basis for it. Perhaps it's not accurately applied to you, hence I'm quite careful trying to fish for more information. As your existing explanations does not quite make sense logically so the conclusion that it some sort of defensive stance invades my mind.

Often when you poke "hardcore" advocates you come to realize that they are just trying to defend a game system they know they will be able to take top spot and prevent others from competing, rather than competing against others.

Be it money p2w. Be it waste time to win doing grinds like current WoW. And all of a sudden when game systems don't support their resources the arguments about "hand holding" pop up.

Noaani wrote: »

My issue with an arena is as stated - the game is supposed to be about an unrestriucted fight over resources, land, castles. Actual things (as actual as you can get in a computer game).

The game is supposed to be about whatever developers with community feedback decides it to be. All of the systems are contrived. The game is defined by commonly agreed rules which are later enforced by the game systems or social pressure.

I do get your point. You still haven't explained how arenas, as you yourself mentioned totally different type of pvp threatens it. It's like claiming that in game gambling of in game currency somehow damages trading, both economical activities with different incentives and goals.

Noaani wrote: »

It is not supposed to be about sterile, staged match over some spot in some contrived ladder system (even for computer game standards).

Taking a game that is supposed to be about the former, and adding the latter, is killing the integrity of the game as a whole.

What it's supposed to be not up to you to dictate. Through our discussion you're throwing around abstract statements with barely any evaluation or introspection as if speaking with authority when you hold none.

And to add to it, why I have this pre-conceived notion:

Noaani wrote: »

It is not supposed to be about sterile, staged match over some spot in some contrived ladder system

There is level of expressed disdain, in a way you chose your wording. Which signals that type of attitude I preconceived. I can write it off as ignorance though. There is plenty of ass clenching moments, 'git gut', league anxiety. As far as some players going pro with actual real life stakes.

Yet you insist it framing like a 'protected environment'. It's protected in some ways not protected in other ways. Just like what you're advocating for but giving priority to different factors when claiming that those factors is all the ashes is about and nothing else can exist. And you wish it to be that way.

And that's what your argument ultimately boils down to. As far as I see it.

bigepeen

If they want arena PvP, do not instance it. Instancing is just lazy game design in MMOs that the genre seems to be trapped in. Spend the effort to integrate an arena or colosseum in the open world.

If they want equalized gear arena PvP, then have changing rooms on either side underneath the stands where spectators can watch the battle in the open world. The changing rooms are where you can store your current armor and switch to equalized armor before the battle if both sides agree to it.

Either way, this lets the open world seem way more lively than teleporting people out into instances. Basically any number of observers can watch from the stands, instead of it being some mini-game where people only know the results, but can't watch in-game. It's way more immersive than instancing as well.

Noaani

wherediditrun wrote: »

What it's supposed to be not up to you to dictate.

Indeed it's not - nor is it up to the community as a whole (game development is not a democracy).

Rather, it is up to Steven.

The points I have been expressing that you seem to have been mistaking as my own are in fact mostly what Steven has said over the past 4 or 5 years that I have been following this game.

Some of the extrapolation on those points may be my own, but the points that this game is about a fight over the open worlds resources, that there is no real arena based progression or gear, that is all Stevens.

JustVine

Noaani wrote: »

JustVine wrote: »

If a PvP minigame is enough to significantly dilute the server and lower interaction with Ashes core content the game has bigger problems with it's content design and population. If the minigame fills such a significant niche for Ashes' Intended target audience , something has to be fundamentally looked at in it's core experience design.

I've not even got up to arena PvP pulling players from open world content yet, honestly.

I agree it is a fairly minor concern, but it is still a valid concern.

While I agree that an arena is likely to pull in people that would not otherwise be the games core audience, that then leaves the question - is that a good thing?

Imagine you are an arena-centric player, and you go to Ashes. The first thing you notice is that there is absolutely no experience to be had in the arena (as per Steven). Then you observe a total absence of any attempt for class balance in the arena (as per Steven). Then you realize that there is also no gearing to be had via the arena (as per Steven).

All of a sudden, as an arena-centric player, you are left wondering what the hell you are playing, and are not likely to stay arounf very long at all. This is just going to result in more people saying "Ashes is shit, don't play it" to their friends, or on MMO forums and such.

I don't see that as a good thing for the game, and I assume most others wouldn't, either.

I don't think we are in a huge disagreement here either but you are definitely more worried than I. Sometimes the slope is slippery. Sometimes it isn't. Given how hugely different core Ashes gameplay is from 'arena PvP, I am more willing to bet it isn't slippery (but it still could be.)

As a side note if 1v1 PvP balance is observed to be bad most 'fighting gamers'' who are more likely to be the type you pull in by arena combat, tend to be strongly mixed. Some even like the rps match up centric imbalance, but that's usually because they can swap character. Still it's something that crowd tends to be more aware of their preference on and know better what they feel fits their model. That's why I am less worried about the negative pr aspect, but again your worry is valid on that front. A way to mitigate this is to make it part of an expansion, not the core release, and to make certain design paradigms and marketing statements relative to the minigame.

Noaani

JustVine wrote: »

A way to mitigate this is to make it part of an expansion, not the core release, and to make certain design paradigms and marketing statements relative to the minigame.

Personally, since we are talking about a different player market, with different desires and goals in the game, rather than making it an expansion, I would rather see it as a different game, perhaps but not necessarily by different developer.

I just don't see the point in trying to make Ashes two games in one.

Vyc

Taleof2Cities wrote: »

wherediditrun wrote: »

Beating "competitive" pvp through sunked time, however, is hand holding.

Ashes isn't going to let you download the game and then jump into an instanced battleground with max gear and stats, @wherediditrun. Best to get that out of your head earlier than later.

@Dolyem summarized it pretty well (above) with the gear and level progression ... which is a hallmark of any MMO.

Why not? Guild Wars 2 did that very exact thing. People limited on time that love pvp just queued into the instanced PvP?

You could even Do WvWvW on day 1 and had your char boosted to a bare standard

JustVine

Noaani wrote: »

JustVine wrote: »

A way to mitigate this is to make it part of an expansion, not the core release, and to make certain design paradigms and marketing statements relative to the minigame.

Personally, since we are talking about a different player market, with different desires and goals in the game, rather than making it an expansion, I would rather see it as a different game, perhaps but not necessarily by different developer.

I just don't see the point in trying to make Ashes two games in one.

Most Mmos are more than one game in one. A game is defined in this case by me as 'having specific rules and core systems that lead to a specific definition or sets of possible definitions of success and progression.' Even Ashes preported core design intentions are a composite of interconnected but different games. Crafters and Bounty Hunters play very different games, even if they are interconnected by corruption system and caravans. Siege is a very different game than overworld pve or caravans. They all have different rules and definitions of success and core gameplay loops. A minigame in an mmo by my definition is 'things that have a different ruleset from any of the core gameplay models, that offer no progression possible outside the game itself relative to the world at large.' They don't expand tge games scope. They are just something to do when you are bored or don't have a perfect situation for something else you would rather be doing. Arena PvP fits that. I say 'part of' an expansion because minigames aren't enough to make a full expansion by themselves. It's just DLC because it didn't expand the scope or core systems in the game that effect the world.

wherediditrun

Noaani wrote: »

Some of the extrapolation on those points may be my own, but the points that this game is about a fight over the open worlds resources, that there is no real arena based progression or gear, that is all Stevens.

Yeah. It is. But that doesn't have to exclude side activities or gate all of the side activities behind main gameplay loop. And as I've expressed I like and I'm pro the fact that there is no gear related rewards to arena. That's exactly how it should be. WoW having made some remarkably bad decisions is no hallmark. It's of benefit to provide players with things to do in game other than main gameplay loop and just hang out in nodes.

To this day, I'm still interested so what's the main gold sink. You think that all servers will be engaged in endless wars of destruction? That doesn't happen. It happens often, but you also end up with long periods of relative peace too.

Ok, I'm topped out player. I'm in guild, and happen to end up in rather peaceful server. What you do? What design keeps me busy? WoW made bunch of chores to keep players wasting time on the game and we know how that panned out, not to mention tirade of substractive "expansions". So it serves the actual end game too.

For other players it may serve a training ground to master their class. Or have 'community' or cross node events. There is a lot of potential how to do it right that integrates well into the game.

That goes not just for arena, but taverns, maybe in game casinos .. all that stuff which makes you feel like a citizen of the node. Who hangs out in the city not just in the wilderness grinding. And as someone pointed out, it doesn't have to be instanced it can be part of open world where other players could watch the matches.

As for Arena attracting arena minded players who do not engage with MMO content. I doubt it has any chance at it. It's just a sideline activity for main player base. MMO pvp design is very outdated and interpid doesn't seem to have anyone competent enough to push that forward on their current roster so is smarter just to play safe and deliver pvp mechanics which just don't suck too much. Barely anyone does, Riot upcoming MMO might change it since they do have the know how and probably people capable of pvp design at higher level, but it's all speculation.

Vyc

wherediditrun wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

I didn't say it wasn't harmless in that regard (it is harmful in other, larger picture ways), I said it was handholding.

That is if you evaluate arena pvp from pve or in terms of ashes pvx context.
If I evaluate from pvp context, bringing pvx advantages like gear progression, level etc is handholding in competitive pvp. As game provides you ways outside of competitive pvp to not suck in it. In this particular case, if you spend long enough time to grind, you get a participation trophy in pvp too, as you're allowed to whale over people who like to focus more on expertise and less on grind.

In other words, player becomes sheltered from reality check of being bad and ending up with low ranking. On the flip-side neither high rank holds no integrity because it's never clear if player is really worth it.

Point being x being "handholding" is generally empty statement expressing personal preference how player likes to play the game.

Question is do you want competitive pvp scene in Ashes. Currently the answer is getting is no. Covered up with some long winded explanations of 'hand holding', which in turn means "I might be fine with it as long as I could bring my PvX progression to leverage in it". Which is like, "oh you guys want hand to hand sparring, ok as long as we can bring in guns, I happen to have one got as a reward in hunting match last week". It's ridiculous and results in pvp scene with no integrity.

LOL

Nailed it.
NAILED IT

Or " Hey i can ride around with 30 of my friends all day ganking people (Albion problems apparently) take their stuff so they can never fight back well." And all because Id have no job, no responsibilities in life or simply dgaf about anything outside of gluing my face to a game screen all day.

Hey Im not saying to deny those people there open world looting ala UO. I did UO. That was THE ultimate sandbox which Archeage styled much of its concept after btw. Im simply saying Id like to enjoy balanced pvp win a instanced setting that I can pay my monthly fee whatever and be able to log in, run some Battlegrounds or Arena and log out. BECAUSE I HAVE A JOB TO WAKE UP FOR.

This is a fact. Ive played or tried out
Ultima Online
Evercrack
Asherons Call
AC2
DaoC
Shadowbane
WoW
Age of Conan
Rift
Guild Wars 2
WoW again

Do you know what actually plagues MMORPGs these days? TIME. Back when they were novel and before the internet exploded, people didnt really have the time as much as they got sucked in to the novelty. Now after 25 years of MMOs, people realize they neglected life in prior years.Its why WoW after Panda started bleeding off subs. Blizzard caught on and started making things easier but the game was old by then.

Im not saying there isnt a place for a grind game, I am saying there is a place for instanced pvp in a grind game where the grind part has no bearing on the content. This will keep subs.

Do you know why a lot of Arena and BG, World PvP players left WoW in droves? They got tired of having to grind PvE content to do the content they wanted to do. Same principle applies here.

Adding a Warsong Gulch, AB, EOTS, Black Garden or Whitefall Steppes that puts all players in a instanced talent/gearing system isnt going to prevent you from doing the content YOU want to do. It just enables me to do content I enjoy, give my money to the company as opposed to saying " Hey nice looking game..I would have loved it....twenty years ago when I had hours on end each day to waste"

Oh and ps- Time is why all these gaming companies do "pay to win" or "boosts" . Because they realize most gamers have money to burn but dont have time. No time = no money if no time=unable to grind. they learned this the hard way which is why so many MMOs failed. WoW adapted but was already out ten years when they did.

Out of all the mmos ever made, Guild Wars 2 did it the right way imo. They just dropped the ball on content. I wasnt a fan of the appearance of the game, the classes either. But they balanced the work/life/gameplay real well. Plus they handled the gems/gold thing perfectly.

Noaani

Vyc wrote: »

Do you know why a lot of Arena and BG, World PvP players left WoW in droves? They got tired of having to grind PvE content to do the content they wanted to do. Same principle applies here.

This is why the arena in Ashes is not going to be used as a draw card.

They have no intention of making the arena a viable place to level up or to gear up - even open world PvP is limited in how well you can do this.

As I said already, this type of game play is better suited to being it's own game, rather than being tacked on to an existing game and then trying to force it's desires on to the rest of the game, and crying like a child if the developer refuses.

Noaani

wherediditrun wrote: »

To this day, I'm still interested so what's the main gold sink. You think that all servers will be engaged in endless wars of destruction? That doesn't happen. It happens often, but you also end up with long periods of relative peace too.

Ok, I'm topped out player. I'm in guild, and happen to end up in rather peaceful server. What you do? What design keeps me busy? WoW made bunch of chores to keep players wasting time on the game and we know how that panned out, not to mention tirade of substractive "expansions". So it serves the actual end game too.

I take it you are suggesting that you think players that came to the game wanting open world PvP, wanting to dominate their server and then being successful at that would be content with arena PvP.

This is a falsehood.

Take it from me, people that dominate a server in open world PvP look at arena PvP as well beneath them. It is actual child's play. It is literally the same as a raider in a guild getting server firsts running group content. The second you come across someone that is in top end gear that you have no reasonable access to, and who is used to taking on 3 or 4 players that are every bit as good as you at the same time, you will realize that an arena in a game designed for open world PvP can not be anything more than a sideshow.

wherediditrun

Noaani wrote: »

I take it you are suggesting that you think players that came to the game wanting open world PvP, wanting to dominate their server and then being successful at that would be content with arena PvP.

This is a falsehood.

No I'm not. I think I outlined a couple of times that arena should have no impact on PvX progression. And vice versa, ideally. It's a place where people who want to master their class as a class, congregate, compete and entertain each other. Essentially. It's also a place where people can train.

Noaani wrote: »

Take it from me, people that dominate a server in open world PvP look at arena PvP as well beneath them. It is actual child's play. It is literally the same as a raider in a guild getting server firsts running group content.

That's quite a display of ego. Most world pvp interactions are small scale ganks. Which generally promote social avoidance, as the game here is to avoid getting ganked. And group up does not exactly help as the attacker always has the element of surprise. Occasionally, world pvp is these battle events which are actually fun to participate and have modicum of tactics behind it.

I'm not talking about arena as 1 vs 1 duels just in case you had such impression.

I don't worry to much about the first. There will be a bounty system. Hopefully some tagging / tracking interface too. I would much enjoy that too.

Noaani wrote: »

The second you come across someone that is in top end gear that you have no reasonable access to, and who is used to taking on 3 or 4 players that are every bit as good as you at the same time, you will realize that an arena in a game designed for open world PvP can not be anything more than a sideshow.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that AK-47 beats a club, does not take a genius. The player with the gear might be good but might also be the one being carried by guild as there is no indication. I'm just not sure why you're placing one against the other as it's somehow mutually exclusive again. It isn't. You can do both. Hell, I even suggested how it can be integrated through mercs.

Imagine you try to wage war vs a node which seemingly doesn't have much population. But they manage to hire the A-team of seasoned well co-ordinated folk. Who do both arena and world pvp on regular basis. Sounds fun. It's exceptionally fun to be part of the mercs, as I've mentioned before I think, I had the chance in one of the games. This also creates a dimension where trading and play in economics allows to leverage a "physical" force, which I think promotes play style diversity. A thing which Ashes is going for with node types in my estimation.

That being said my proposition of arena is to be a sideshow and social attraction for like-minded people. Who will participate in both. If you want to play arena pvp on it's own you play other games. Better pvp design. MMO has a lot of issues, like crits which are not reduced the mean favoring players with bad mechanics on coinflips etc. I could go on.

Child Item