The post-game analysis

Running triple melee, we were confined to too much of an offensive mindset to notice the fact that we were up against a 4-DPS team who went directly for the Warrior instagib. The only person who saw this early enough was our Warrior, who retreated back into our room to slow down the opposing team's offense. By the time we'd picked up on what was happening, our Druid was dead and our Warrior was running around the coffin with a sword and board Spell Reflecting and trying to stay alive. By then it was too late and in less than two minutes we were handed our first and only loss for the night.
Looking back at the game, we tried to pick apart everything that went wrong about that two minute game in a discussion that lasted well over an hour. I looked at my performance and kicked myself for not picking up on the adjustment fast enough to hole in with our Warrior, who knew what we were up against right away. We were sloppy from the get-go, losing our positioning and -- by the standards against which we were put, a 4-DPS team -- overextended ourselves by moving out of our starting area and LOSing each other. Sure enough, triple melee already has its own problems with 4-DPS, particularly one of that caliber, and we ran through everything that could have been and needed to be done.
From choosing the right target -- Armory revealed that the Priest had 12k health and was sitting on 473 Resilience, hardly the ideal target in that set-up -- to countercomping, we tried to pick apart everything about the game. Maybe the Mage with 10k health and 400 Resilience might have been a wiser choice, considering he'd overextended himself by Blinking into the room with our Warrior. We'd considered going back to our regular 2345 or 2346 and even considered a triple healer countercomp. We ran the scenarios through our heads over and over and over looking at how we could beat that team.
In the end, we called it for the night, content with a 4 point gain from the previous evening. The post-game analysis is one of the most important phases in playing Arenas. After every game, we dissect what we did, even when we win. We look at how we could have played better, from constructive criticism to our team leader's constant (albeit oddly helpful) nerd raging. Personally, it's one of the things I enjoy the most about the game... picking apart our matches and figuring out how we can do better, constantly looking for ways to take our game to the next level. How about you? How does your team dissect your game and play? What teams and comps give your team the most trouble?
Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, PvP, Arena






Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Kassius Apr 28th 2008 12:42PM
question, wot does 2345 (or 2346) mean? enlighten me as to your pvp jargon plz :D nice article, post arena discussion for me usually consists of: "Sry for dropping wrong trap, anyone for a heroic?"
Arena stresses me out
Rick Apr 28th 2008 12:53PM
2345 is disc priest/holy pally/frost mage/elemental shaman/MS warrior
2346 swaps the mage with a lock
It come from Pandemic's 5v5 setup. The shaman was quoted as saying he just hit's 2345 to win and the names just stuck.
Buuty Apr 28th 2008 12:43PM
Arenas are ruining WoW....
Jeriel Apr 28th 2008 3:05PM
Please elaborate.
And doing a debriefing after a match is essential for improvement. Same goes for PvE content, you need to discuss what went doing after a wipe etc.
I'm a big fan of PvP, my MMO before this was Guildwars, and we did pretty good (record was #26 guild in world rankings). That included knowing the game in and out, and watching what other top guilds are doing.
native Apr 28th 2008 12:49PM
@ 2
/agree
Jagoex Apr 28th 2008 12:54PM
When I casually dabbled in the Arena for a short time, I found it quite easy to hammer down an exact problem that eventually led to a loss. A majority of the time, it simply came down to team composition; basically an issue of rock, paper, scissors. It was frustrating to lose just because a team consisted of our team's anti-classes... not because they had more skill.
The Arena is dynamic, but until it emphasizes class balance above all else, issues like this are a mute point imho.
http://jagoex.blogspot.com
shiplore Apr 28th 2008 2:06PM
*moot* point.
Jagoex Apr 28th 2008 2:21PM
Bah, darn motor memory...
Yes, moot point. Sorry for the typo. =)
Den Apr 28th 2008 7:59PM
PVE has a strong emphasis on class composition as well (2nd boss in heroic Mech as 3 melee or as 3 casters, you choose... Huhuran in AQ40, hunters become a sweet addition for the Nature resist - the list goes on)
How do you learn and drop a new boss in PVE? Keep playing through the wipes. Basically a large time investment.
Guess what Arena is the same - how do you get past being counter comp'ed? Keep playing. How do you minimize the effect of the RGN on your win/loss ratio? Keep playing. 96 games in a weekend and I'm now enjoying my 2k rating.
The real skill in arena is beating the teams you are supposed to lose to pulling off these wins is what will get you past the 1700s. That will only come with time played.
Blizzard just needs to work out a way to stop all the exploiting and S4 is looking like a good start on that. And yes, PVE is also full of exploiting and welfare epics too (I loved leveling in ZG and getting epic gear for it, hello welfare!). On exploiting anyone remember "Overrated"?
http://au.gamespot.com/news/6160983.html
If you aren't good at arena and you don't like it don't do it and please don't cry about it
ps:
By the way Jagoex, as a lock (which I assume from your blog) find your self a good balance druid and the only team you CAN"T beat is double UNDEAD rogue. Yes there are a lot of them, but not enough to stop you being very successful.
Badger Apr 28th 2008 1:00PM
Arena requires organized, it's true, but still ... Try not to take it too seriously, Zach.
When it stops being fun, it stops being worth the effort.
Badger Apr 28th 2008 1:00PM
Arena requires organization, it's true, but still ... Try not to take it too seriously, Zach.
When it stops being fun, it stops being worth the effort.
Badger Apr 28th 2008 1:01PM
God I *HATE* this network connection. Stupid double posts.
Fadmin Apr 28th 2008 1:21PM
Well, a couple more posts by you (5 or so), then some by mushroom and we'll be set. Snake can post later....
Badger Apr 28th 2008 2:21PM
/cower
A SNAKE, A SNAKE!
SNAAAAAKE! IT'S A SNAAAAAKE!
WHOOOA, IT'S A SNAAAAAKE ...
Badge Apr 28th 2008 2:10PM
issues like this are a mute point imho.
http://jagoex.blogspot.com
L2English before you blog pls
Heilig Apr 28th 2008 2:21PM
again, the point is *moot*, not mute. L2english before you blog, please.
Jagoex Apr 28th 2008 2:23PM
Already corrected above by shiplore. But thanks for linking my blog again. ;)
Badger Apr 28th 2008 2:51PM
Hehe ... Nothing wrong with a little shameless self-promotion, right Jago? :-D
Andrew Apr 28th 2008 4:27PM
I rarely like it when people post comments like this, but I have to beg the question: How does this post serve WoW Insider readers?
I began reading it because I am a casual arena player always looking to get better. My arena ratings are NOT good, but my teams are generally full of people with so-so gear and are not true PvPers. When we win it is rarely because we were clever, but more because we screwed up less than the opposing team. We can generally go 5-5 or better in our matches.
So when I see a post like this, I feel that I'm going to get a compelling anecdotal story that will eventually transition into an informative couple of paragraphs. Instead, you described your night and bailed yourself out with asking us a question.
I would have loved it if you could describe more about your positioning. About tactics. Don't tell me that you talked for an hour about what you did wrong. Illustrate what you did wrong and what your solutions were. It felt like you got tired of writing the blog and just tried to end it as quickly as possible.
There are rarely good posts on WoW Insider about PvP. And although I am not a great PvPer, I always want to get better and love reading about tactics.
Rihahn Apr 28th 2008 3:35PM
I say the following as someone who had the option of putting "Duelist" after my shaman's name in Season 1 - though I tend to stick with either "Champion of the Naaru" or "Centurion" these days.
I think the biggest thing Arena has going for it is that it appeals to shorter attention spans. It is also designed to appeal to the 'facebook' generation where personal worth is measured by a number on a web page.
For example: A full-on raid can require 24 other people, several hours of attention, planning, and coordination - and therefore several hours of time. And what do you get when you win? A sense of accomplishment for having solved the raid encounter, perhaps a piece of gear to make the next raid encounter easier, and a repair bill... If you loose you get a repair bill and the loss of several hours of time.
There is no *public* quantifying measurement of 'success' or 'fail' in raiding (outside of world and server firsts) - you either beat the encounter, or you didn't.
Meanwhile an arena match requires 1, 2, or 4 other people, queues up in about 3 minutes, and is over 5 minutes after that. The reward when you win? If you loose? Nothing, because everything is averaged over the week...
There's no real risk versus reward in Arenas - even if you loose, you only loose 10-15 minutes of play time. You don't even loose any of those precious points on that web site for that one lost game - unless you don't play another one and win that week.
And this appeals to a lot of people obviously, which is all fine and dandy.
So both aspects of WoW are legitimate and fun, but I don't think they will ever reconcile the diffrences between the types of players that each appeals to - and by breaking one to promote the other, they are opening one immense can of worms...
In my humble opinion at any rate.