Pyrolol wrote: » There's dueling, i do not see the point in 1v1 rated arena?
Pyrolol wrote: » 2v2 was good but it was very cheesey, double dps etc made it fun because then you didn't need to play 30min + matches when it was healer/dps vs healer/dps hence the rewards being less 3v3 was the more competitive type of arena and most intense, due to the fact that out of the rest of the brackets) it was the most balanced. Two teams of 1 healer + 2 dps go in, 1 team walks out, was much more 5v5 was by far the most fun, though it was more just a meme and hence also less rewards give
JamesSunderland wrote: » Pyrolol wrote: » There's dueling, i do not see the point in 1v1 rated arena? Because Dueling isn't an rated instanced arena mode with rewards. Pyrolol wrote: » 2v2 was good but it was very cheesey, double dps etc made it fun because then you didn't need to play 30min + matches when it was healer/dps vs healer/dps hence the rewards being less 3v3 was the more competitive type of arena and most intense, due to the fact that out of the rest of the brackets) it was the most balanced. Two teams of 1 healer + 2 dps go in, 1 team walks out, was much more 5v5 was by far the most fun, though it was more just a meme and hence also less rewards give I suppose you are referring to WoW arenas and expecting Ashes arenas meta to work in the same way? Quite unreasonable.
Pyrolol wrote: » Not really, more like guidelines
Noaani wrote: » Pyrolol wrote: » Not really, more like guidelines What I still don't get here is - why would someone that is trying to bring back the "good old days" of MMO's use the game that ruined those "good old days" as a guideline?
Pyrolol wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Pyrolol wrote: » Not really, more like guidelines What I still don't get here is - why would someone that is trying to bring back the "good old days" of MMO's use the game that ruined those "good old days" as a guideline? How the hell did rated arena ruin an MMO? Since I’m assuming you are a PvEr how do you really have any facts to back that statement up?
Noaani wrote: » Pyrolol wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Pyrolol wrote: » Not really, more like guidelines What I still don't get here is - why would someone that is trying to bring back the "good old days" of MMO's use the game that ruined those "good old days" as a guideline? How the hell did rated arena ruin an MMO? Since I’m assuming you are a PvEr how do you really have any facts to back that statement up? My comment was specific to the notion that "WoW did it this way, therefore Ashes must do it too". However, arenas ruin MMO's by turning them in to little more than lobby games - the game world exists purely as a lobby while you wait for your arena. PvE instances that players can be ported to are just as bad. Instances that you can only run once, and that you need to travel to in order to run are not nearly as bad.
Pyrolol wrote: » You can't take it so literally, there are quality aspects of WoW that kept it going for so long,
Noaani wrote: » Pyrolol wrote: » You can't take it so literally, there are quality aspects of WoW that kept it going for so long, Lets assume for a minute that I agree (I don't, WoW is the reason MMO's have been in decline for over a decade). Even if this were true, that does not mean you just take every aspect of the game and add it to the one you are making. If they did, then every game would just be WoW. What you do, is you consider the aspects of many games and decide if anything that they do fits in with the game you want to make. Since Intrepid are making Ashes primarily as an open world game, anything that pulls players out of the open world for long stretches of time (such as arenas) are simply not a good fit for the game. Since Steven has said quite bluntly that he is not trying to make a game for everyone, it then stands to reason that if an arena is the thing a given player wants the most from their MMO, Ashes is not the MMO for them. If you want an open world game where you are competing for every scrap of resources the game has to offer, Ashes may well be for you. if you want to hide off in a corner and only fight people in predictable encounters, Ashes may well not be for you.
Pyrolol wrote: » Just means we will have a bracket to play with a friend because usually waiting for that 3rd player to log on as well takes time
Noaani wrote: » Pyrolol wrote: » Just means we will have a bracket to play with a friend because usually waiting for that 3rd player to log on as well takes time Again, they don't want you waiting for a friend to log on, they want you out in the world. The key thing to making an open world game work is having players in that open world. If your players are in arenas, then they are not in your open world, making your open world worse. This is why there is no progression to be had in the arena (or, at the very least, very miniscule progression such as temporary gear enchants - but no actual gear). It is a side show that you do as a temporary escape, it is not the thing you log in to Ashes for. And yes, making the arena something people log in to Ashes for would indeed be game breaking.
Marzzo wrote: » 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.
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.
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.
Pyrolol wrote: » Not at all what I'm saying, definitely going to be experiencing every aspect of the game and not going to be sitting around in towns waiting for arena ques, all they are saying and myself included is to replace 1v1 arena with 2v2. Because it is an enjoyable type of arena especially with double dps
Noaani wrote: » Pyrolol wrote: » Not at all what I'm saying, definitely going to be experiencing every aspect of the game and not going to be sitting around in towns waiting for arena ques, all they are saying and myself included is to replace 1v1 arena with 2v2. Because it is an enjoyable type of arena especially with double dps But 1v1 is also an enjoyable type of arena. If the game is to have an arena, 1v1 is the first thing to add. Adding other options may well be fine, but that 1v1 is the cornerstone.
Pyrolol wrote: » More like 3v3 is the cornerstone, what in the world makes you think 1v1 is? What PvP experience do you actually have to make hard statements like these? Never even heard of a 1v1 rated arena, unless it was just dueling like every other mmo How will it work for healers? Do they have to change specs to compete? Will tanks dominate and be meta because they’re unkillable For a team inspired game (it is because having other classes with you is beneficial) I don’t see how 2v2 is not at all way better? Than an anti social 1v1?
JamesSunderland wrote: » Pyrolol wrote: » More like 3v3 is the cornerstone, what in the world makes you think 1v1 is? What PvP experience do you actually have to make hard statements like these? Never even heard of a 1v1 rated arena, unless it was just dueling like every other mmo How will it work for healers? Do they have to change specs to compete? Will tanks dominate and be meta because they’re unkillable For a team inspired game (it is because having other classes with you is beneficial) I don’t see how 2v2 is not at all way better? Than an anti social 1v1? Oh i see, clearly only experienced WoW arenas and never experienced Lineage 2 1v1 Olympiads or Archeage 1v1 Gladiator arena. Btw for a team inspired game with the balance revolved around a full party(8players) balance like Ashes 8v8 would be the optimal not 3v3 or 2v2.
Pyrolol wrote: » Clearly experienced more arena then you have Just from that statement, don’t know how little you climbed but yeah nah
Pyrolol wrote: » Unbalanced 1v1s will be alot more boring then 2v2 Least in 2v2 you got fast games compared to long drawn out kiting for 1v1s
Pyrolol wrote: » There will be plenty of big group pvp things to do, i dont see why they wouldn’t keep the traditional 3v3 / 5v5 for smaller concentrated games?
