Jump to content

Why not 1v1 arena?


  • Please log in to reply
241 replies to this topic

#1 bandet

bandet
  • Junkies
  • Orcclass_name
  • US-Darkspear
  • Cyclone
  • Posts: 672
  • Talents: Beast Mastery 1/2/0/2/1/1/2

Posted 16 November 2011 - 08:39 PM

Hear me out, This at first, may sound like the same silly suggestion, but when you actually think about it, it works out well. There is literally no drawbacks to it, people are not forced to do it for anything, it is just for FUN for whoever wants to. That is what the game is about, right? Fun.

1. Advantages of this to the game.


A. Experience/opportunities for new players.
I am sure they would would love to have this. Probably the biggest cause of people quitting WoW is because they are new and cannot access any content or find anyone to play with at higher levels than random dungeons or bgs. This is even more-so a problem in Arenas/RBGs. A new player needs to not just find people to play with him, but he needs to find GOOD people to be able to accomplish anything. No one will play with anyone who isn't “2.4k” but, if no one will play with them, how will they get 2.4k? Any person who will play with you probably won't be 2.4k capable outside of a vastly overpowered comp, which do tend to be nerfed as they appear. As a new player, it is an endless loop that you cannot escape. No one will play with you unless you prove you are good, and you cannot prove you are good if no one will play with you.

Not only that a new player cannot find partners, but they have very little opportunity to gain experience in PvP, so they can't actually get any better. The only real way to become good is with a lot of experience. All the “PvP guides” or sites like skill-capped are simply crap. It is impossible to become good by copying what a good player does. It doesn't work like that, you have to work for it, you can't get by with an imitation. If a new player wants to be better, and get a higher rating to find some decent partners to attempt to try to get gladiator or some such, he needs A LOT gameplay experience versus opponents that are better than him. You simply won't be able to get that with a random team.

Having a 1v1 arena system allows a new player, or any player who has not “proven himself” to that servers PvP clique to gain experience and show what they accomplished, without being judged based upon the quality of players they are forced to play with.

B. Something for high-end PvPers to do.
A Player who only PvPs generally has a lot of downtime. They have no need to make gold, as they use no consumeables. They have no need to grind reputation, as none of it offers PvP gear. Once they are honor-capped, they have no need to go into a BG. They can only gain so many conquest points per week, and they can only play when their teammates are on. It is not likely that they will just abandon their 2.6k team every day because they are bored, so if their partners aren't on, or they have all their conquest points for that week, they have NOTHING to do, outside of silly things like collecting old achivements or vanity pets. Having only that as an option is not acceptable, and most end up quitting.
They can duel outside of town, but depending on the server, the amount of people doing that are generally pretty small. Additionally, it is not likely you will find an opponent that is close enough to your level, above or below, to give you enough of a challenge to make it entertaining. If you do, it is only a handful of players, and it comes to the point where you only duel the same person over and over, which gets boring and it is eventually determined that one of the two will almost always win, and it no longer becomes fun. Fighting opponents that are too easy for you to face is not fun, which causes most Bgs to be extremely boring. While it might be hilarious to aimed shot a mage in greens for 100k after the first time, it gets really old really fast.

Having a rated 1v1 arena system ensures that at any given time, a skilled individual can easily find a huge assortment of opponents that can give him a challenge. It also gives them something to work towards that they can do by themselves regardless of their current status. Their rating can ALWAYS be higher.

2. Common arguments against this.


This is one of those ideas that gets suggested a lot, but it is shot down by a bandwagon without much thought. Quite frankly, all the arguments against it are pointless, silly, or not even applicable as you are not forced to participate in the system. Tell me why I should not be allowed to do something I find fun because someone else who wouldn't even use it doesn't like it? Exactly, you can't.

A. “Imbalance”
Obviously, the game isn't balanced around 1v1. So what? Should duels not exist because the game is not balanced around 1v1? The game is not much better in 2v2 or 3v3 either, so why does it matter? I am not suggesting people be allowed to get the same gear that they can get in 3v3, gladiator titles, or other things. There would be nothing gained to an individual playing an unfair class/spec.
Or the issue with hard-counters. Some classes in 1v1 kill others nearly all of the time, but it is not like there is a class that kills nothing. Part of being a good player is being able to beat something that you normally shouldn't. If you can't, you are average, and should lose until you figure out a new strategy that works better.

"But I can't beat a hard-counter, that is why it is a hard-counter!"

Hard counters do not actually exist. It is just a hypothetical situation. The best example I can use to describe this is the classic warlock vs rogue. There has been very little in this game since bc that has had such an imbalance as a warlock vs rogue. However, to say that it is impossible for a warlock to beat a rogue as a "hard-counter" implies, is simply wrong. Everyone in the game has seen a warlock kill a rogue.

"But that rogue was bad!"

The rogue being bad is saying the rogue was worse than the warlock, which is saying the warlock is better than the rogue. Hard counters DO NOT exist. Be better than the counter, and you will win, just how the warlock beats the bad rogue. You can ALWAYS be better.

Also, people using at this argument look at balance in 1v1 versus a perspective which compares it to 3v3 or 5v5. Obviously, the 1v1 system would be different than the regular brackets.
What are they worried about, their rating that doesn't matter will go down because they got qued up against a frost mage? Your personal 1v1 rating will not be affected by this, due to all players ratings playing your class being affected by the same imbalances. I will attempt to explain this in more detail:

In 2v2, 3v3, or 5v5, you can pair up with ANY class in the game, and run any comp in the game. Instead of discussing class balance in larger arenas, it is more accurate to discuss composition balance, where less powerful compositions might include currently underpowered classes or specs, and overpowered compositions include overpowered classes. People who run an underpowered composition tend to have worse rating than those who run overpowered compositions. This makes perfect sense, however, a good rating in the system is based upon the best compositions available. If you don't play those comps, your rating may suffer. The system does not compensate for composition imbalance, there is just the rating which is good or bad, relative to every composition in the game, not just yours.

So while a particularly open-minded individual might be like, "wow, that 1800 is an amazing rating for two survival hunters and a holy priest", you are not given any benefits for being 1800 even if you are doing well for your comp.

In a 1v1 arena with a rating system, the same situation will happen, except while being limited to a rating relative to every possible composition, you are forced to have your rating relative to your class only. The only potential variables would be your individual spec which would inevitably result in your classes rating being relative to the most competitive spec. However, it is much easier to play with an underpar spec, or simply respec than it is to find an entirely new team.

Let us break that down with... MATH!

So, for the sake of simplicity, we will not worry about monks, which will probably end up being the most op thing since s5 dks.

If hard counters do actually exist, as people seem to believe, you might see a pattern like this:

Class 1. Lets say this class happens to be "hard countered" so that he will never win versus 5 classes, and the other 5 are fair. That, is of course, what "hard countered" means. He can never win. Say, the person playing class 1 is a very skilled individual, in fact the best of his class in the world (of course, he still can't beat the 5 "hard counters"), and he can beat the other 5 classes almost all of the time, because it is not a hard counter.

So, what would you say his win-loss would be? Assuming that he fights an even number of each class, which is a fair assumption, he will have a 1-1 win/loss ratio as the best player of the class in the world. So, "rank 1" of class 1 would be 1500, and no one else would be higher, because he is the best player ever and it is impossible to beat a hard counter, and thus 1500 would be an extremely high rating for class 1.

That is exactly how a rating system in a 1v1 would end up being. Each class results in a different standard for what a good rating is. If your class sucks in a 1v1 situation, you might be the best player in the world with that little 1100.

To further outline this relative rating system, I discuss later a method of class-based "gladiators", in which a class specific title is awarded to the top of each class, instead of just the top rated. This alone makes a 1v1 bracket more balanced than 2v2, 3v3, or 5v5 will EVER be.

Additionally, if they find it unbearable that there will just be some classes that they can never beat without improving themselves, they do not have to participate. Also, that is the situation a hunter in 3v3 faces every day. Yes, it sucks, and it currently exists. Nothing new will be added.

B. “Leave Cleave”
This originated as Leaf Cleave in 2v2, in which 2 resto druids would sit there and heal themselves until the opponents just left, as they couldn't actually kill them.
The argument is that you will get in a game versus a healer... and you won't be able to kill it.
First off, the majority of the classes in the game can kill a healer in 1v1, it just takes a bit of time, so the problem is extremely exaggerated. The fear is from a result of the 2v2 system with 2 healers, where both of them are exponentially harder to kill than a solo one.

Also, there is nothing in the game that a healer can kill. All classes have self healing abilities which do more than most healers can dish out in damage (with the possible exception of a survival hunter, as the only spec without any self healing, but as I understand, that will be changed in mists of pandaria, as hunters can get heals in all specs through the new talent trees). Basically, a healer doing this will never win unless the opponent leaves, and most of the time they will just die before the time limit is reached. That means that for one, there is little incentive for them to do it, and for two, if they do, it will result in them having a low rating as they can never win, and you will not see them.

For an example, how often does one actually see two healers in 2v2? Exactly, hardly ever. There simply isn't much incentive to do it except for laughs, and it gets old after the first two games. The entire problem is over-exaggerated.

Additionally, the game max limit would not need to be 45 minutes, as any duel would normally not take that long. It could be set to 10 minutes, so if one does encounter this situation, it is not as much of a problem.

C. “Why should he get Gear/Titles/Mounts in a 1v1 bracket?”
A simple, and poor argument. What happens in 2v2? You can't get gladiator, or tier 2 PvP gear. I, and most PvPers would be just as happy if NO rewards at all were given for playing 1v1, and it was simply a glorified duel. It would be an easy way to find new opponents that are a challenge, it would be for fun.

If they don't like the idea of dueling for fun, they don't have to participate.

D. “Win-trading”
It might be argued that it would be too easy to win trade in a 1v1. This is really a simple solution.
In the current arena system, you can't que against the same team twice in a row within two minutes. Why not just do the same thing, but with a longer time frame, 5 or 10 minutes? This would also lessen the effect of imbalance, as if you are queing as a warrior, it would be annoying to fight the same frost mage 10 times in a row.

E. WoW is a multi-player game
This argument is just plain stupid. 1v1 = two players. Two players = multiplayer.

3. Rebalancing for 1v1
Several things would have to be changed from the normal arena system to make this run smoothly.

A. Maps
All the current arena maps are simply not designed for 1v1 play. Maps like Blades Edge, or Dalaran sewers would provide unfair advantages to certain classes, for example a warlock versus any melee. Maps would either need to be modified or made new.

LoS should exist in the maps, but I think the obstruction objects should be much smaller, so it is harder to just stay behind the thing the entire time. Think Nagrand arena, with pillars half the width.

The stealth-vision buff should not give a debuff component. That would cause stealthers to attempt to wait it out a minute for the opponent to grab it, then attack when they get bonus damage. If a stealther waits more than a minute to open, they are obviously intentionally stalling and need to have the advantage of surprise removed.

B. Food
It would be unfair for mages only to be able to eat in the arena, ESPECIALLY in a 1v1 as they are good kiters, and could run away to eat all day while the opponent could not.
Either food needs to be removed all-together, or all players should be allowed to eat in the fight.
I would suggest only allowing a special food baught from vendors to be used. One that does less healing/mana regen than the normal food, as to lessen the effect of abuse.

C. 2 out of 3
Probably the best way to balance the fights are have it as best 2 out of 3. You fight the same guy up to three times, so you have an opportunity to change your strategy, or if you choke you can come back. Most duels are faught 2 out of 3 and it is agreed to be the best method. Additionally, cooldowns should not reset each fight, so you have to manage them. If you blow all of them to win in the first fight, you are vulnerable the next.

4. Rewards from the 1v1 bracket


As I said, I would be perfectly happy if nothing was given for winning in this, It would be like a rated war-game with nothing to gain but bragging rights. I would come back to wow in a heartbeat if a 1v1 arena was added, even without any rewards, simply because it would be something I would enjoy a lot. But if some were to be added, here are examples.

A. Achievements
Obviously, the standard plethora of achievements. Maybe a title meta achievement.

B. Gear
If gear was to be able to be acquired here, I would think winning awarding honor points would be fair. It would provide a way for players to gear themselves if they do not want to do battlegrounds. Options are always good, and people would still have to participate in arenas or rated bg to get arena gear.
Honor could be awarded either as a set number per win, or it could be based upon the opponents rating, similar to how you gain or lose more rating based upon your opponents rating.

Otherwise, you could award a small number of conquest points for winning, similar to your daily random BG, without any t2 gear being able to be purchased with a 2200 1v1 rating.

C. Titles
Despite imbalances, it is always fun to be able to say “You were the best”. But awarding gladiator to 1v1 is not suitable, as each season the majorty of it would tend to go to whatever class happens to be the best in 1v1 at that time.

However, there should be some recognition for being high rated. I suggest this:
Instead of giving gladiator to the top .5% You can award a class-specific title to the top
.5% of each class, so for example, a mage might have to be 2.8k rated to get it, while say, a shaman has to only be 2.2k if mostly all shamans were lower rated.

This also nearly eliminates ALL class-imbalance issues that was the #1 complaint, and instead of your rating being good or bad regardless of class, unlike arena, it would be based on your class. A good rating would be different for each class. Think lineage 2's olympiad system if you ever played that game.

D. Vanity items
You could add silly things from achievements in the arena, like winning 100 games. The sky is the limit, really. Things like a “Victory Banner” which could be similar to a flag of ownership in which it is a standard that you can place into the body of a dead opponent. For added flair, you could be able to set the symbol on it like a guild tabard.


So, as I just explained, the benefits of a 1v1 far outweigh the penalties, which are nothing. This also provides an opportunity for new players to get into the game and improve themselves at their leisure, while adding a new mini-game for high-end players.

Simple fact is, there is NO reason to not add it. As I said, why should all of us who want it be denied based upon a group of people who think it is a bad idea and will never use it anyways? It has zero potential to do harm to the game, and only good can come from it. It is a win/win in all aspects.

I mean, come on.. Blizzard is adding a pokemon mini-game to pandaria. I think, at this point if you are adding something like that, even more so a reason to add 1v1 arenas. Tons of people think that poke-duels is a stupid idea and they hate it, but guess what, they simply won't participate, and those that like it will. It hurts no one, and neither will a 1v1 arena.

#2 Shmdjk

Shmdjk
  • Members
  • Trollclass_name
  • EU-Kor'gall
  • Cruelty / Crueldad
  • Posts: 92
  • Talents: Enhancement

Posted 16 November 2011 - 08:43 PM

decent mage would win anything

#3 Vexxius

Vexxius
  • Premium Junkies
  • Curse Premium
  • Orcclass_name
  • US-Korgath
  • Vengeance
  • Posts: 2023
  • Talents: Arms 0/2/1/1/1/2/.
  • 2v2: 2023
  • 3v3: 2957
  • 5v5: 2606
  • RBG: 2373
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 16 November 2011 - 08:46 PM

I wouldn't be against having a 1v1 arena, as long as no rewards are given. It'd be something interesting to do rather than sitting in Orgrimmar/Durotar all day. Most people spend hours dueling anyway...

#4 Conradical

Conradical
  • Junkies
  • Humanclass_name
  • US-Garona
  • Rampage
  • Posts: 1586
  • Talents: Affliction 0/2/2/0/2/.

Posted 16 November 2011 - 08:49 PM

1v1 arena could provide rewards as long as the rewards were given to the top .5% of each class/spec. That way it isn't just 95% rogues, 5% mages (or whatever wins duels these days, idk).

#5 bandet

bandet
  • Junkies
  • Orcclass_name
  • US-Darkspear
  • Cyclone
  • Posts: 672
  • Talents: Beast Mastery 1/2/0/2/1/1/2

Posted 16 November 2011 - 09:00 PM

View PostConradical, on 16 November 2011 - 08:49 PM, said:

1v1 arena could provide rewards as long as the rewards were given to the top .5% of each class/spec. That way it isn't just 95% rogues, 5% mages (or whatever wins duels these days, idk).


Yes, I said that in the possible rewards section. (I said .05 because i was dyslexic, .5 works too, whatever)

So basically, if a class like, mages, wins 99% of the time, 1% being vs hunters (lol), then they all have 3k ratings, so you might be like "Lol you are only 3k on mage, baddie"

It will eventually sort itself out, and the class balance issue will be a non-factor. Not that it would be a problem to begin with, as long as it doesn't give real rewards.

And, if someone doesn't like it.. they don't have to play =/

#6 bandet

bandet
  • Junkies
  • Orcclass_name
  • US-Darkspear
  • Cyclone
  • Posts: 672
  • Talents: Beast Mastery 1/2/0/2/1/1/2

Posted 16 November 2011 - 09:11 PM

View PostVexius, on 16 November 2011 - 08:46 PM, said:

I wouldn't be against having a 1v1 arena, as long as no rewards are given. It'd be something interesting to do rather than sitting in Orgrimmar/Durotar all day. Most people spend hours dueling anyway...


Thats what I am saying.

People say like "What is the point of this, just go duel"

The problem is, on any given server the people dueling are usually the same all the time. You duel the same people over and over and over, or you are dueling people who you can beat one handed. With an auto-que based upon rating system for a duel, you would at least be guaranteed a challenging opponent. It also is more fun than dueling as you have a rating you can build up, even if it gets you nothing, it is fun to do.

Besides, everyone on wow loves bragging rights.

#7 YndigoDS

YndigoDS
  • Members
  • Undeadclass_name
  • EU-Frostmane
  • Misery
  • Posts: 2196
  • Talents:
  • RBG: 960

Posted 16 November 2011 - 09:12 PM

rogues, ferals and mages would rule this bracket. nothing else would really stand a chance.
Posted Image

#8 bandet

bandet
  • Junkies
  • Orcclass_name
  • US-Darkspear
  • Cyclone
  • Posts: 672
  • Talents: Beast Mastery 1/2/0/2/1/1/2

Posted 16 November 2011 - 09:15 PM

Its okay, if you can't handle fighting an op class, you don't have to play.

#9 God

God
  • Members
  • Posts: 1668

Posted 16 November 2011 - 09:22 PM

Because 1v1 is the worst part of this game.
Posted Image

#10 Kakio

Kakio
  • Members
  • Dwarfclass_name
  • EU-Khadgar
  • Reckoning / Abrechnung
  • Posts: 1646
  • Talents: Protection
  • LocationNorway ^^,

Posted 16 November 2011 - 09:32 PM

I agree, it would be like 2v2, just there for the sake of being there. However the problem is that the amount of QQ about 2s now even though blizz say time after time they are balancing 3s, would be transferred to the 1v1. People will QQ about it even if they are told its not supposed to be balanced.

Posted Image


#11 bandet

bandet
  • Junkies
  • Orcclass_name
  • US-Darkspear
  • Cyclone
  • Posts: 672
  • Talents: Beast Mastery 1/2/0/2/1/1/2

Posted 16 November 2011 - 09:48 PM

View PostKakio, on 16 November 2011 - 09:32 PM, said:

I agree, it would be like 2v2, just there for the sake of being there. However the problem is that the amount of QQ about 2s now even though blizz say time after time they are balancing 3s, would be transferred to the 1v1. People will QQ about it even if they are told its not supposed to be balanced.


People QQing is not a valid reason to not have it.

Being there just to be there is good enough reason to have it.

If people enjoy it, and the people who don't enjoy it aren't hindered by it in the slightest way, what does it matter? If they complain about something that doesn't affect them, they are just useless cretins.

Would be like someone going to rift forums and complaining about how overpowered paladins are, completely pointless.

#12 bandet

bandet
  • Junkies
  • Orcclass_name
  • US-Darkspear
  • Cyclone
  • Posts: 672
  • Talents: Beast Mastery 1/2/0/2/1/1/2

Posted 16 November 2011 - 09:48 PM

View PostGod, on 16 November 2011 - 09:22 PM, said:

Because 1v1 is the worst part of this game.


Opinion.

#13 Mxt

Mxt
  • Members
  • Dwarfclass_name
  • US-Sargeras
  • Shadowburn
  • Posts: 809
  • Talents: Elemental 0/2/2/2/0/2
  • RBG: 768

Posted 16 November 2011 - 09:50 PM

tl;dr


BLOOD DKS
FROST MAGES
WTF MANG??!??!?

View Postshuubi, on 18 February 2012 - 04:07 PM, said:

In Putin's Russia, people with problems hope to help themselves!

#14 Aranoxs

Aranoxs
  • Junkies
  • Humanclass_name
  • EU-Outland
  • Misery
  • Posts: 25
  • Talents: Holy 0/0/1/2/0/0
  • RBG: 2520

Posted 16 November 2011 - 09:55 PM

What about healers? '--

#15 bandet

bandet
  • Junkies
  • Orcclass_name
  • US-Darkspear
  • Cyclone
  • Posts: 672
  • Talents: Beast Mastery 1/2/0/2/1/1/2

Posted 16 November 2011 - 09:59 PM

View PostGOY696, on 16 November 2011 - 09:55 PM, said:

What about healers? '--


Try reading the post?

#16 Kakio

Kakio
  • Members
  • Dwarfclass_name
  • EU-Khadgar
  • Reckoning / Abrechnung
  • Posts: 1646
  • Talents: Protection
  • LocationNorway ^^,

Posted 16 November 2011 - 10:07 PM

View Postbandet, on 16 November 2011 - 09:48 PM, said:

People QQing is not a valid reason to not have it.

Being there just to be there is good enough reason to have it.

If people enjoy it, and the people who don't enjoy it aren't hindered by it in the slightest way, what does it matter? If they complain about something that doesn't affect them, they are just useless cretins.

Would be like someone going to rift forums and complaining about how overpowered paladins are, completely pointless.

no cause if the majority of people playing it get more frustrated then they get happy then that will reflect negativly on blizzard and loads of player will start QQing trust me. More people QQing on forums and stuff cause the echo effect where everyone on the forums only read other people QQing and think that everyone in wow is QQing about the matter making them all unified behind nerfing things that arnt really that OP in the first place. Like most people on the official wow forums seem to think nerfing mages, ferals and DKs for 2v2 is reasonable since they are OP in that bracket. However that is not valid. Personally I think mages and ferals are a bit to strong in 3s and should be nerfed for that reason, but when I see them pwning shit (and me myself on my mage) I cant help but get affected by it and feel they are powerful.

Posted Image


#17 Nikvis

Nikvis
  • Members
  • Posts: 24
  • LocationTichondrius

Posted 16 November 2011 - 10:23 PM

Would be cool for skirmishes and war games. It'd be a CM's/developer nightmare if it were rated matches.

#18 God

God
  • Members
  • Posts: 1668

Posted 16 November 2011 - 10:31 PM

View Postbandet, on 16 November 2011 - 09:48 PM, said:

Opinion.

lol
Posted Image

#19 YndigoDS

YndigoDS
  • Members
  • Undeadclass_name
  • EU-Frostmane
  • Misery
  • Posts: 2196
  • Talents:
  • RBG: 960

Posted 16 November 2011 - 10:34 PM

View Postbandet, on 16 November 2011 - 09:48 PM, said:

Opinion.


:lol:
Posted Image

#20 bandet

bandet
  • Junkies
  • Orcclass_name
  • US-Darkspear
  • Cyclone
  • Posts: 672
  • Talents: Beast Mastery 1/2/0/2/1/1/2

Posted 16 November 2011 - 10:35 PM

View PostKakio, on 16 November 2011 - 10:07 PM, said:

no cause if the majority of people playing it get more frustrated then they get happy then that will reflect negativly on blizzard and loads of player will start QQing trust me. More people QQing on forums and stuff cause the echo effect where everyone on the forums only read other people QQing and think that everyone in wow is QQing about the matter making them all unified behind nerfing things that arnt really that OP in the first place. Like most people on the official wow forums seem to think nerfing mages, ferals and DKs for 2v2 is reasonable since they are OP in that bracket. However that is not valid. Personally I think mages and ferals are a bit to strong in 3s and should be nerfed for that reason, but when I see them pwning shit (and me myself on my mage) I cant help but get affected by it and feel they are powerful.

Even still, if you don't like it you don't have to play it.

Why not put it in when plenty of people WOULD like it just because some don't want to play it? It would be like removing arenas entirely because PvErs dont like them.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

<