Jump to content

  • Curse Sites
Help

Class-Specific Gladiator


  • Please log in to reply
55 replies to this topic

#41 Forumz

Forumz
  • Junkies
  • Humanclass_name
  • EU-Argent Dawn
  • Cataclysme / Cataclysm
  • Posts: 1726
  • Talents: Shadow 2/1/1/1/./.
  • 2v2: 2728
  • 3v3: 2279
  • 5v5: 96
  • RBG: 768

Posted 26 April 2013 - 06:15 PM

View Postgangstalicious, on 26 April 2013 - 06:03 PM, said:

For example if affliction is stronger than destro all the top gladiator spots are taken by affliction warlocks and you HAVE to go affliction even if you enjoy destro or not have access to titles.

How is this different from what it is now? The only difference would be that the overall amount of gladiator spots for a class -will- be slightly higher (or lower) because .5% of all teams is less of some (and more of others) than .5% of a class.

Titles don't matter at all. If you're good, people play with you even if you don't have titles, as long as you can prove you're as good as you say you are.

So basically you think class-specific gladiator is bad because people could reroll? Just like they do now?
Posted Image

#42 gangstalicious

gangstalicious
  • Junkies
  • Humanclass_name
  • US-Spirestone
  • Reckoning
  • Posts: 710
  • Talents: Destruction

Posted 26 April 2013 - 06:25 PM

View PostForumz, on 26 April 2013 - 06:15 PM, said:

How is this different from what it is now? The only difference would be that the overall amount of gladiator spots for a class -will- be slightly higher (or lower) because .5% of all teams is less of some (and more of others) than .5% of a class.

Titles don't matter at all. If you're good, people play with you even if you don't have titles, as long as you can prove you're as good as you say you are.

So basically you think class-specific gladiator is bad because people could reroll? Just like they do now?

you cut off the section where I was talking about druids.........My point is that other classes get EXTRA while other classes stay the same which is completely unfair.

If you believe so much in your theory would you mind me posting this on the junkies section for you? You wont because you know the only people who MIGHT agree with you are the ones who consistently blame their spec (aka the challengers)

#43 Forumz

Forumz
  • Junkies
  • Humanclass_name
  • EU-Argent Dawn
  • Cataclysme / Cataclysm
  • Posts: 1726
  • Talents: Shadow 2/1/1/1/./.
  • 2v2: 2728
  • 3v3: 2279
  • 5v5: 96
  • RBG: 768

Posted 26 April 2013 - 07:03 PM

Didn't we already determine I'm not talking about spec-specific? Also, the 'druid part' was in the rest of the post, which is what I cut off because my first part of reply was directed at the part I quoted. The 'druid part' makes no sense because you're suddenly assuming druids would get 3 different glad possibilities, while balance and feral are both dps and therefor obviously the same in terms of 'class specific'.

Also, it has been on the 'junkies section' before, and the outcome was basically somewhat resembling a 50/50, some people like it, some don't. And if we would hypothetically implement it, the main whines would be coming from the shaman and priest corner, as they have a much higher comp-representation, meaning that if a class-specific system were to be implemented the glad spots for those classes would 'shrink'. (if the top .5% would be 100 teams, and you have 50 priests in the top .5% teams, that means a 50% representation comp-wise, but class wise the top .5% could be 10 priests, or even less)

PS: I still don't see how ie a paladin gets ''more''. They can still only gear and play for 1 glad spot. they can't get 2 glad titles on 1 char. Just like the 'pures'. (and I mainly play DK, so I'm a 'pure'. I'm not complaining. That might just be because I don't care about titles though)
Posted Image

#44 bandet

bandet
  • Junkies
  • Humanclass_name
  • US-Sargeras
  • Shadowburn
  • Posts: 671
  • Talents: Beast Mastery 1/0/1/0/1/1
  • RBG: 1832

Posted 26 April 2013 - 08:23 PM

View Postgangstalicious, on 26 April 2013 - 05:17 PM, said:

lets say for example sub is the most fun spec for rogues
reckful and all the other tournament rogues stay sub and get gladiator

the duelist rogues have the option to get duelist and stay the spec they like and get duelist or swap over to combat for a easier title(because the real gladiators are sub)

The ladders never balance themselves out players manipulate them as much as they can while blizzard polices it as little as they can get away with.

If all the bads swap to get an easier title, that will become the harder title since there is more competition.

This is like, common sense people. It is a self-regulatory system. By its very nature it reacts when people try to abuse it, making it work against their abuse.

Stop saying they can do these things to abuse it that literally makes zero sense without understanding how it self regulates.

#45 Evolute

Evolute
  • Junkies
  • Orcclass_name
  • US-Mal'Ganis
  • Stormstrike
  • Posts: 1765
  • Talents: Restoration 0/2/0/1/0/0
  • RBG: 192
  • LocationCanada

Posted 26 April 2013 - 08:27 PM

still a bad idea bandet

Posted Image


#46 bandet

bandet
  • Junkies
  • Humanclass_name
  • US-Sargeras
  • Shadowburn
  • Posts: 671
  • Talents: Beast Mastery 1/0/1/0/1/1
  • RBG: 1832

Posted 26 April 2013 - 08:29 PM

View PostEvolute, on 26 April 2013 - 08:27 PM, said:

still a bad idea bandet

How is increasing diversity a bad idea?

#47 Udderly

Udderly
  • Members
  • Trollclass_name
  • US-Kil'jaeden
  • Bloodlust
  • Posts: 793
  • Talents:
  • RBG: 1918

Posted 26 April 2013 - 08:30 PM

View Postgangstalicious, on 26 April 2013 - 02:55 AM, said:

just accept you thought up a retarded idea, we all do stupid shit from time to time. Let it die

Are you capable of not being a dick to him?  He is discussing something he thinks is a good idea and some other people have actually agreed.  You don't agree? Totally fine.  Try to be less of a dbag about it though.

The things people do on this site to show their superiority is mind blowing to me....

#48 gangstalicious

gangstalicious
  • Junkies
  • Humanclass_name
  • US-Spirestone
  • Reckoning
  • Posts: 710
  • Talents: Destruction

Posted 26 April 2013 - 08:40 PM

View PostUdderly, on 26 April 2013 - 08:30 PM, said:

Are you capable of not being a dick to him?  He is discussing something he thinks is a good idea and some other people have actually agreed.  You don't agree? Totally fine.  Try to be less of a dbag about it though.

The things people do on this site to show their superiority is mind blowing to me....

I am being nice getting him to stop spreading this before everyone in the community coins him "that fool who wants class specific arena titles"

this MIGHT be functional in RBGs where you have your own personal rating and no team rating(still dumb imo bout it is worth discussing) but in arena where you are queing as a team.

person A: ok lets que up again
person B: naw man I alrdy got my glad
person A: wtf I still have 4oo rating more to go
person C: bro Im 800 rating above glad atm LULZ

#49 Mattadoro

Mattadoro
  • Junkies
  • Humanclass_name
  • US-Sargeras
  • Shadowburn
  • Posts: 2002
  • Talents: Marksmanship 1/1/2/2/1/0
  • 2v2: 2323
  • 3v3: 2703
  • RBG: 576
  • LocationGAINSville, The Gym

Posted 26 April 2013 - 08:41 PM

haven't read the whole thread so i apologize if some of this has been stated, but this would actually cause just as many issues. For example my friend plays a ww monk and lets pretend they are trash (they're not great but lets pretend they are even worse in 3v3) now im a derpy hunter who will need 2500+ for glad because my class is derpy, Why would i play with someone who would want to camp at 2200. Currently on a bongwater bg hunter ww healer is possible but with this new system comps would only run the strongest stuff as the strongest stuff is the only possible way of your class being in the top .05%.
Posted Image

#50 bandet

bandet
  • Junkies
  • Humanclass_name
  • US-Sargeras
  • Shadowburn
  • Posts: 671
  • Talents: Beast Mastery 1/0/1/0/1/1
  • RBG: 1832

Posted 26 April 2013 - 08:48 PM

View PostMattadoro, on 26 April 2013 - 08:41 PM, said:

haven't read the whole thread so i apologize if some of this has been stated, but this would actually cause just as many issues. For example my friend plays a ww monk and lets pretend they are trash (they're not great but lets pretend they are even worse in 3v3) now im a derpy hunter who will need 2500+ for glad because my class is derpy, Why would i play with someone who would want to camp at 2200. Currently on a bongwater bg hunter ww healer is possible but with this new system comps would only run the strongest stuff as the strongest stuff is the only possible way of your class being in the top .05%.

View Postgangstalicious, on 26 April 2013 - 08:40 PM, said:

person A: ok lets que up again
person B: naw man I alrdy got my glad
person A: wtf I still have 4oo rating more to go
person C: bro Im 800 rating above glad atm LULZ

Rating Inflation. It is made to prevent people from sitting ratings, because they get overtaken.

Rating inflation was invented to stop exactly the type of behavior you are describing.

Problem doesn't exist.

#51 Forumz

Forumz
  • Junkies
  • Humanclass_name
  • EU-Argent Dawn
  • Cataclysme / Cataclysm
  • Posts: 1726
  • Talents: Shadow 2/1/1/1/./.
  • 2v2: 2728
  • 3v3: 2279
  • 5v5: 96
  • RBG: 768

Posted 26 April 2013 - 08:52 PM

Well to be fair rating inflation doesn't stop people from running the most powerful comp for their class. But they're doing that already anyway though. Everyone playing the strongest comp is nothing new.
Posted Image

#52 bandet

bandet
  • Junkies
  • Humanclass_name
  • US-Sargeras
  • Shadowburn
  • Posts: 671
  • Talents: Beast Mastery 1/0/1/0/1/1
  • RBG: 1832

Posted 26 April 2013 - 08:55 PM

View PostForumz, on 26 April 2013 - 08:52 PM, said:

Well to be fair rating inflation doesn't stop people from running the most powerful comp for their class. But they're doing that already anyway though. Everyone playing the strongest comp is nothing new.

Strongest comp for one class is not equal to strongest comp for another class. Why should they be ranked on the same level? They shouldn't. It isn't balanced.

#53 gangstalicious

gangstalicious
  • Junkies
  • Humanclass_name
  • US-Spirestone
  • Reckoning
  • Posts: 710
  • Talents: Destruction

Posted 26 April 2013 - 09:32 PM

View Postbandet, on 26 April 2013 - 08:55 PM, said:

Strongest comp for one class is not equal to strongest comp for another class. Why should they be ranked on the same level? They shouldn't. It isn't balanced.

I tried to save you I really did

#54 Forumz

Forumz
  • Junkies
  • Humanclass_name
  • EU-Argent Dawn
  • Cataclysme / Cataclysm
  • Posts: 1726
  • Talents: Shadow 2/1/1/1/./.
  • 2v2: 2728
  • 3v3: 2279
  • 5v5: 96
  • RBG: 768

Posted 26 April 2013 - 09:37 PM

The gospel of Gangsta.
Posted Image

#55 Reirei

Reirei
  • Members
  • Undeadclass_name
  • US-Tichondrius
  • Bloodlust
  • Posts: 2584
  • Talents: Assassination 2/2/1/1/0/0
  • RBG: 1952
  • LocationGermany

Posted 26 April 2013 - 10:25 PM

i think bandet just wants SV hunter title <_<
shut up pvp guy

#56 bandet

bandet
  • Junkies
  • Humanclass_name
  • US-Sargeras
  • Shadowburn
  • Posts: 671
  • Talents: Beast Mastery 1/0/1/0/1/1
  • RBG: 1832

Posted 27 April 2013 - 02:38 AM

View PostReirei, on 26 April 2013 - 10:25 PM, said:

i think bandet just wants SV hunter title <_<

Not relevant to the topic, but no, I don't. I would prefer a 1v1 arena... but again.. not relevant to the topic.

Relevant to topic:

You see crumpled piece of paper
I see origami boulder

Posted Image




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

<