Jump to content


Photo

Arena Rewards (was "Arena Season only 2 months")


  • Please log in to reply
328 replies to this topic

#41 LuckyAC

LuckyAC

    Von Kaiser

  • Members
  • 88 posts

Posted 20 February 2007 - 01:41 AM

Yeah, cooldown classes definitely have a good thing going. i played a team with a shaman and two BM hunters - each time we get Bloodlust and two Bestial Wrath/Rapid Fires. Still, Heroism is definitely even a step above other cooldowns.

#42 Amera

Amera

    Jedi Knight

  • Members
  • 4,817 posts

Posted 20 February 2007 - 02:54 AM

I still think its a problem that the non-5v5 brackets are worth basically nothing. I had assumed all along that point totals from your teams would be cumulative, so there was at least a reason to play in other brackets just to get a few more points each week. Yet as it is, a 600 rating 5v5 team is still earning as many points as a 1900 rated 2v2 team. As long as you can put 5 people together to play 10 games a week, no matter how bad they are, you'll still get more points than by being gods of lower brackets.

#43 Lamaros

Lamaros

    King Hippo

  • Members
  • 511 posts

Posted 20 February 2007 - 03:17 AM

I still think its a problem that the non-5v5 brackets are worth basically nothing. I had assumed all along that point totals from your teams would be cumulative, so there was at least a reason to play in other brackets just to get a few more points each week. Yet as it is, a 600 rating 5v5 team is still earning as many points as a 1900 rated 2v2 team. As long as you can put 5 people together to play 10 games a week, no matter how bad they are, you'll still get more points than by being gods of lower brackets.


Aye. This is stupid and is the main reason I won't be PvPing anytime soon. I don't have a time to organise a 5 man team and be decent enough to find it fun while doing all the PvE stuff. I'm just going to 2v2 and 3v3 for fun every now and then.

#44 Bury

Bury

    Super Macho Man

  • Allied Members
  • 7,595 posts

Posted 20 February 2007 - 05:13 AM

Yet as it is, a 600 rating 5v5 team is still earning as many points as a 1900 rated 2v2 team.


Did you mean this literally? According to Marketa's spreadsheet, a 1900-rated 2v2 team will accumulate 4286 points at the end of the season, which is approximately equivalent to what a 1625-rated 5v5 team would pull in.

#45 Amera

Amera

    Jedi Knight

  • Members
  • 4,817 posts

Posted 20 February 2007 - 08:44 AM

Did you mean this literally? According to Marketa's spreadsheet, a 1900-rated 2v2 team will accumulate 4286 points at the end of the season, which is approximately equivalent to what a 1625-rated 5v5 team would pull in.


Yes, though I was going by this points calculator: http://www.noggaddicts.com/apoints.php

If that is accurate, at 600 rating a 5v5 team will earn 223 points per week. A 1900 rated 2v2 team will also be earning 223 points per week. This is why I was saying the 2v2 bracket is pointless from the standpoint of earning arena points - you may as well scrap together a 5v5 team and play 10 games a week even if you are horrible, since you'll still end up better off than being good in the 2v2 bracket.

3v3 is better. A 1900 3v3 team would be the equivalent of a 1630 5v5 team.

#46 Chemoshvt

Chemoshvt

    Von Kaiser

  • Members
  • 29 posts

Posted 20 February 2007 - 11:49 AM

Ok I'm a little confused about one issue.. What happens with toons that are alts on your team that dont play as much as you do, for instance...

On my 2v2 team we have myself and a hunter which play about 90% of the games...and there is another person on the team that plays the other 10% with either of us. Will he gain the same amount of arena points as we do on a weekly basis even though he's only playing 10% of the games?

Also, do points for 2v2 3v3 and 5v5 teams acccumulate? Or is it just the "highest" rated team the only one that counts towards your weekly arena points? Thanks.

#47 Guest_abats_*

Guest_abats_*
  • Guests

Posted 20 February 2007 - 12:27 PM

You need to have played 30% of the games to get actual points for a week. And the team that gets the highest points will count.

So while waiting for your 2vs2 to get higher rating you could in theory 'farm' some arena points the first couople of weeks just by making a 5vs5 and playing 10 games.

#48 Mem

Mem

    King Hippo

  • Members
  • 599 posts

Posted 20 February 2007 - 12:35 PM

To be honest, I don't want to get into the mess of organizing a 5 man team now, even though that would probably yield some very nice upgrades for me, since we just started raiding again at a pretty casual pace. Together with another rogue from my guild I played some 30 games yesterday and it was fun, pure fun, even though our rating still hovers at about 1500. I guess we can do better since we both were pretty rusted and inexperienced, but we won't really practice for it unless we feel like it. Some combos are pretty hard to defeat whereas others seemed to be matchups that greatly favoured us.

#49 Kink

Kink

    King Hippo

  • Members
  • 577 posts

Posted 20 February 2007 - 01:08 PM

I dont know if it has been mentioned yet, but it seems to me people are still under the false impression that the 3 vs 3 bracket is not worthwhile anymore. Its points gain was upped to 80% of that of the 5 vs 5 bracket.

It clearly seems to me that 3 vs 3 is the way to go for the slightly less serious PvPer. You still gain some good points and it is far easier to manage than 5 vs 5. 2 vs 2 now gains 60% of the 5 vs 5 points, but I would stil rather just grab an extra person myself.
There is light at the end of the tunnel.
The only problem is, it's often an incoming train.

#50 Brissa

Brissa

    Not enough rage

  • Members
  • 473 posts

Posted 20 February 2007 - 01:12 PM

It also seems to me that so far the opposition in the 3v3 group are far weaker than what you are facing in the 5v5 group.
But then again that might just be my imagination.

#51 Kissmyaxe

Kissmyaxe

    Von Kaiser

  • Members
  • 81 posts

Posted 20 February 2007 - 01:15 PM

They changed the amount of points the lower brackets get so you get more points than before.
Although 5v5 team is harder to manage it's still the best way to get points if you have at least decent members.

#52 Dendory

Dendory

    Piston Honda

  • Members
  • 182 posts

Posted 20 February 2007 - 01:31 PM

Here's a question. Is there any use in keeping alive a team if you're under 1500 rating, unless you're just short on money? Since there is no cooldown or restriction as far as I know, wouldn't all teams that got bad luck and fell under the starting point simply disband and recreate to get their 450 points next week?

#53 Suesse

Suesse

    Don Flamenco

  • Members
  • 378 posts

Posted 20 February 2007 - 03:41 PM

I tried to invite an alt of one of the main players to the team and it would not work.

What I mean is that, while you can only build arena points from one team per character (even if you have a 5v5, 3v3, and 2v2), you can be in a different 5v5 for each one of your alts. Therefore, while your main may be able to get an arena epic every week due to his/her high standing, your alts could be getting an epic every one or two months, for a rather small price.

With the ability to disband and regroup every week, it seems that the arena can become nothing more than a vendor who sells level 110-115 epics. This is depressing.

#54 Shawn

Shawn

    Von Kaiser

  • Members
  • 59 posts

Posted 20 February 2007 - 03:42 PM

wouldn't all teams that got bad luck and fell under the starting point simply disband and recreate to get their 450 points next week?

You would still need to play ten games to get arena-points.

#55 frmorrison

frmorrison

    Protector

  • Allied Members
  • 11,427 posts

Posted 20 February 2007 - 03:51 PM

With the ability to disband and regroup every week, it seems that the arena can become nothing more than a vendor who sells level 110-115 epics. This is depressing.


Assuming you did that and there is no protection in place for reforming, it would cost 5 people 40g a week; and you would get about a 1270 rating (for doing 0-10) for the week.

Assuming the reforming idea works, why do you care that someone is slowly getting epics (would have to wait about 5 weeks per epic and pay 200ish gold)?

Maybe that will be abused, but Arenas still are a great game mechanic.

Edit: With regard to getting ilevel 115 epics with time/gold, compare that example to tailoring. Any player can create enough Shadowcloth/Spellcloth solo over time (about 2 months) to create ilevel three ilevel 105 epics, likely the same player will have to spend gold on primals/netherweave/arcane dust in order to have enough mats to craft the items.

#56 Avair

Avair

    The Howard Roark of Shipwrights

  • Members
  • 3,909 posts

Posted 20 February 2007 - 04:00 PM

Maybe that will be abused, but Arenas still are a great game mechanic.


Blizzard can easily track the breaking and reforming of teams. I suspect that if it becomes a problem, they will take some measure to reduce the incentive to do it.

#57 Keline

Keline

    King Hippo

  • Members
  • 715 posts

Posted 20 February 2007 - 04:20 PM

The only thing that needs to be added to matchmaking is a limit to how often the same teams can be matched on 1 day. It's fucking annoying to lose a ton of ranking because you're getting matched against the same powerplay team 4 times in a row.

#58 Copernicus

Copernicus

    Bald Bull

  • Members
  • 1,433 posts

Posted 20 February 2007 - 07:17 PM

The only thing that needs to be added to matchmaking is a limit to how often the same teams can be matched on 1 day. It's fucking annoying to lose a ton of ranking because you're getting matched against the same powerplay team 4 times in a row.

Especially since that's the easiest way to set up collusion so two teams can keep up a high arena rank without putting any maintenance effort into it.

#59 Copernicus

Copernicus

    Bald Bull

  • Members
  • 1,433 posts

Posted 20 February 2007 - 07:23 PM

I dont know if it has been mentioned yet, but it seems to me people are still under the false impression that the 3 vs 3 bracket is not worthwhile anymore. Its points gain was upped to 80% of that of the 5 vs 5 bracket.

It clearly seems to me that 3 vs 3 is the way to go for the slightly less serious PvPer. You still gain some good points and it is far easier to manage than 5 vs 5. 2 vs 2 now gains 60% of the 5 vs 5 points, but I would stil rather just grab an extra person myself.

I made a quick graph of this for my guild.

http://i9.tinypic.com/2v9ps9z.gif

In the 1500-1800 range, the 3v3 team needs to be slightly over 100 rating higher than the 5v5 team to be more valuable. I don't know how difficult it is to get through the various rankings, but it still looks like 5v5 is the best option.

#60 Zyla

Zyla

    Ravaging the Art World.

  • Allied Members
  • 15,552 posts

Posted 20 February 2007 - 07:23 PM

I still don't see why a team would intentionally lose for any reason. I understand collusion, but presumably the top teams are vying for the tournament bid, and therefore would want to put as much distance from their rivals as possible. Beating them is the most direct path to this.

Zyla, International Man of a Certain Standard.

That's right, I met my future wife through Zyla. :shudder:





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users