Why not offer 2v2 Arenas?

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?

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

Noaani

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.

unknown

This content has been removed.

Jahlon

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.

Marzzo

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.

Marzzo

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.

tugowar

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.

unknown

This content has been removed.

Noaani

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.

tugowar

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.

Tacualeon

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

Damokles

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.

Nagash

maybe the colosseum in military nodes will let you do 2v2 fights

Atama

You can’t have a two player team because they would need a chaperone.

We want respectable arenas here people, not dens of smut.

Pyrolol

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

Repkar

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.

Marzzo

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.

Noaani

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.

Pyrolol

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

Noaani

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.

Pyrolol

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 🥰

Child Item