Blizzard discusses the state of PvP

- Too much emphasis on Arenas and not enough on Battlegrounds.
- Too much emphasis on 2s and not enough on 3s and 5s.
- Not enough class / spec representation in Arena. Warlock, hunter and shaman numbers in particular are too low, but they're not the only ones.
- Too fast-paced.
The charge that burst damage is too high is also old and not entirely accurate. Blizzard points to the fact that healers are also powerful in Arenas -- borderline overpowered, actually. Very few Arena teams find success without a healer. Ghostcrawler reminds players that healers are so important that not having a Mortal Strike-type debuff "may be a huge liability." It's a delicate problem, and Blizzard is afraid that nerfing burst damage across the board can lead to extended matches where crowd control remains the only solution.
Speaking of crowd control, some players pined about the dominance of Rogue / Mage / Priest in Arenas. The viability of the comp is undeniable as it continues to win tournaments through different seasons. Blizzard agrees, noting that they'd "prefer to see other comps as dominant as RMPs in 3s," but explains nerfing the comp would probably simply lead to the dominance of cleave or double melee.
He brings up an old point about Resilience gear not being readily available at the beginning of Wrath of the Lich King or sacrificing too many stats to the point where it was more attractive to use PvE gear. This contributed to the perception that burst damage was too high -- the damage output has generally remained the same but more players are sporting resilience now, allowing for slightly longer, more strategic matches.
As much as Blizzard points to the low representation of Warlocks, Hunters, and Shamans this season, it should be interesting to note that these have fluctuated over time. In particular, Blizzard managed to raise Hunter representation in Season 5 to the point where Survival Hunters needed to be nerfed. Warlocks also enjoyed decent representation in earlier seasons, so it's a continuous challenge to balance the classes. Shamans, unfortunately, have yet to enjoy their time in the limelight.
Ghostcrawler also stresses that Arenas aren't going to disappear (sorry, guys). He explains that some people actually enjoy Arenas "because they are quick, easy to organize (relative to a Battleground), often have fast queues, and / or they just enjoy the 'purity'" of a death match without the burden of map objectives. Blizzard understands, however, that players who don't like Arenas are forced to play it in order to acquire the best PvP gear and would like to fix that. The key issue with this is that Blizzard needs "to develop a way to reward good gear through BGs that isn't based on endless grinding."
Whether we'll see that solution as soon as Patch 3.2 remains to be seen. Blizzard is definitely looking at some interesting things for PvP and the Battlegrounds, and part of that is a means for Battlegrounds to be as rewarding as Arenas. With Blizzard relatively quick to respond to player issues, hopes are good for positive changes to WoW PvP... soon®.
Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Blizzard, PvP, Forums, Battlegrounds, Arena






Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
Chukie Jun 16th 2009 8:14PM
I really hope they manage to bring an emphasis back to BGs.
I played a sl/sl lock in s3 had everything short of my shoulders and hated every day of it.
I wished deep affliction could be arena viable because that was what I liked to play and every time I went into a BG I could actually play how I wanted not how a meta game guided my choices.
I understand many like arenas but for me it's too fine of a microscope. Nothing is pretty when looked at that close up.
Here's to hoping blizz finds a good way to implement good BG rewards for skill not time played. I won't lie though I'm plum out of ideas on how they can do it.
Plan Jun 16th 2009 9:09PM
They act like someone else is responsible for the emphasis being on arena and not BGs, when there are two full tiers between the crap you can get from an inhuman amount of honor grinding, and the stuff available from arena.
At the very least, make lower-tier PvP weapons available at lower ratings (say, 1500) so we don't have to run into teams rocking Furious Weapons in the 1400s and 1500s. How they manage to get there, I don't know.
And the thing is, there have been thousands of good suggestions on the forums about how to fix certain issues, class-related and in general. I'm not talking about the off-the-wall stuff or gratuitous QQ -- I'm talking about those players who provide math and reasoning in polite and well-written posts and go ignored in favor of quick and easy "fixes" that never really address the problem.
"Shamans, unfortunately, have yet to enjoy their time in the limelight."
After three seasons of misery as Enhancement, I went Resto, and it's still difficult finding partners even with 900 resilience. All the "pro" nerd-ragers are busy with their own FotM combos, and since I am not a prick who screams at strangers over vent, I'm left with the tons of DKs rocking blues and Titansteel weapons to pick from. Nice.
Still waiting for GC to tell us when the dev team will fix totem stomping macros...it's been months since he's said he "doesn't like it" but nothing's happened. Perhaps after the 1,297th tweak to Death Knights?
vazhkatsi Jun 16th 2009 11:31PM
i don't do much arena, but out of the only 6 matches i've played i went 4 wins as a dual Haunt/SL lock team. the only annoying one was when we fought an arms/druid team and it wound up being me and the resto druid for 10 minutes, while she pillar humped and i just dotted and drained mana.
Will Jun 16th 2009 8:15PM
One major issue with current PvP is that it is too contained within Arenas, I wish there was a way they could make mass pvp viable and fun. Battlegrounds are nice but they just seem like a stepping stone to gearing your character to compete in Arenas.
If they could find a way to let guilds declare war on each other or have faction wide wars that you could participate in via PvP quests (not all clumped in one zone like wintergrasp) where there was good reward or achievements possibly, this would be better.
http://www.wowconfidential.com
Ele Jun 16th 2009 8:16PM
Thank goodness for that. Arenas were starting to drive me insane... Now all they have to do is fix AV so it is actually more than a meaningless rush to kill a boss, in which you all but ignore other players...
Elry Jun 17th 2009 9:37AM
I have a feeling they'll just ignore AV completely now. With a new battleground being released that, as far as I can tell from the info on it at the official website, sounds exactly like AV should be - at its simplest, objectives to fulfill to make killing a boss in an enemy stronghold much easier. I think even the new BG will turn into a rush to kill the enemy leader almost straight after release, unless they make it actually impossible to do so! But then they should add some other incentives that will make people want to spend half an hour to an hour in one BG.
But I would also love to see AV work how it should.
Clbull Jun 16th 2009 8:16PM
All I got to say is "Finally."
I agree with all of the complaints made about PvP. Burst damage from most classes is currently far too high, to the point where even in high resilience gear, it can only take a few hits to kill you.
As someone who dislikes Arena (due to several reasons), I hate the fact that I am forced to play it (and somehow get very high ratings against much better geared players who can do far better burst damage) to get the best PvP gear.
I think that Blizzard needs to change quite a bit about Battlegrounds. Back in Vanilla, we had the Honorable Kill system which allowed us to purchase good gear based on our PvP rank. Yet now, Battlegrounds feel more like a repetitive grindfest for weak - mediocre PvP gear.
Plan Jun 16th 2009 9:21PM
Ah, yes. It's akin to the NBA declaring that, from now on, only the Lakers and Boston Celtics will be permitted to have players taller than 6'6" on their roster. In addition, while players on those two teams will have custom Nikes, the rest of the league will be forced to wear old-school canvas Converse All-Stars while on the court.
Additionally, the Lakers and Celtics will be awarded three points for each field goal and four points for each three-pointer, but the rest of the league will be awarded one point per basket, regardless of where the shot was taken from.
WoW arena is the only game I know where the game creates a ghetto populated by lesser-ranked players, and rewards the top players with gear so much better than everyone else's that it becomes impossible for the "scrubs" to dig themselves out of the hole -- that is, it is impossible for an equally-skilled lower team to beat the higher-ranked team, simply because the numbers (the gear gap) do not add up. Supping even the RNG worked out in favor of the lesser-geared team, it's almost never enough to make up for the hundreds of hit points, AP, SP, etc, that gear affords the higher-ranked players.
Or as I like to say, it's like coming into a an artillery fight with a boxcutter. Good luck!
Scoobydruid Jun 17th 2009 12:32AM
I wrote a comment further down but Plan's reply below said it better than my choice of words. Arena has formed a ghetto. Even with hard work, the scrubs are doomed because of the gear gap. So we don't play. Setting up the system so that elite teams are the only ones who get the truly high powered gear is ridiculous. It solidifies their dominance and removes all hope for the scrubs.
I'm not suggesting the high ranked players are just lucky - they're awesome players and that didn't happen by RNG. But why are you giving the super powers even more overpowered weapons?
Eisengel Jun 18th 2009 12:00AM
Other people made this same comment many times throughout BC, including me, and unfortunately it is still valid.
The problem is this, you like PvP, you do well, you beat a bunch of tough teams and have a high rating, so you'd like a reward. WoW is a very gear-based game, so you'd expect a gear reward. You'd also expect that since you earned it through PvP, you would get a PvP-oriented piece of gear. This makes sense enough... however the effect is unfortunately this partitioning of players who were the first ones to get good gear, who are very good at PvP AND now better geared, and all those who weren't, who are now at more of a disadvantage than the first teams that qualified for the gear. Even though I'm sure Blizzard didn't intend this effect, there's no way they could take away Arena gear now.
I see two solutions (which I've stated before, but hey, Blizz doesn't change in a day); handicaps and leagues.
As you increase in rank, you can get better gear, but you also get handicapped. Let's say that, for example, for every 100 points of matchmaking rating you are above the other team, .1 seconds is added to your GCD. Then, even though you have better gear, you still have to significantly outplay the other team. If your team truly is good, then you should still be able to beat the other team.
Things can also be divided into leagues based on not only team rating, but gear ilvl and resilience. This is a tougher solution to work with since populations for each league aren't guaranteed to be large enough for good competition or stable over time. They might be able to work with some tinkering, but it would be rough to figure out the 'right' set of parameters.
It seems Blizz is trying to use handicaps based on score.... however I for one don't think that is panning out. If I go in and fight a much better-geared and -ranked team and lose, I still lost, even if I lose 0 score/rating. If I go in and fight a much better-geared and -ranked team that is handicapped, if I play well I may win.
Clbull Jun 18th 2009 12:55PM
Actually, in my opinion, Blizzard should go back to the way it was during Seasons 1 and 2.
Remove team and personal rating requirements on the gear, because its just making Arena less accessible and worthwhile for the players who can't reach 2000+ rating (due to player skill, gear, class imbalance and other common reasons.)
Sure, we had much larger issues with Win Trading back in Seasons 1 and 2 (and by that, I mean the fact that you could effectively buy your way into a successful Arena team to get gear), but as opposed to GREATLY restricting the rewards for anyone below 1800 - 2000 rating?
Back in Seasons 1 and 2, it was possible for a less experienced team to get this gear, but it would have taken a lot longer. Now, its more like you NEED to have extremely high ratings just to get any rewards.
Agerath Jun 16th 2009 8:17PM
So GC follows up his assertion that the focus on Arena is too great with ideas on how to fix Arena.
Riiiight.
Butnick Jun 17th 2009 12:14AM
Ummmm... correct me if I'm wrong but hunter representation in season 5 was only due to the fact we could get Brutal Gladiator's Decapitator from season four at a lower cost? That and some other season 4 stuff that was actually pretty sexy if you weren't running BT or MH.
havitech Jun 16th 2009 8:24PM
"Too much emphasis on Arenas and not enough on Battlegrounds."
YES! They need to put the War back in the World of Warcraft!
Taladan Jun 16th 2009 9:06PM
In a way, arenas are more War-oriented than battlegrounds, IMHO. In arenas, you have only one objective: kill the competition. In BGs, you have several different objectives and only one "killing the competition" may award you a victory -- and, even with that, you can still lose due the competition doing the objectives instead of going into full war.
Maybe that's why WG is so popular: Often when defending, the real objective is to kill the competition before they are capable of doing anything. It's a place where you can go farm HKs without bothering with anything else.
havitech Jun 16th 2009 9:31PM
@Taladan
That is totally wrong. Arenas are organized duels. War is a different beast almost entirely. Capturing or destroying strategic objectives is just as important as reducing the enemy army's population. Therefore, battlegrounds make much more sense as a focus for PvP than arenas ever will.
Keleron Jun 16th 2009 10:10PM
@Taladan I disagree with your views on what war is. Arena, is merely a blood match. Kill the other team. Thats it. War is not about killing. Never is. There are many more objectives in war. Usually the objectives are geographic, political, religious, etc. SImilar to our WoW bgs there are objectives.. Killing the other players is means to an end. Killing for killing is not what war is. Therefore I totally agree with those that say bring war back to warcraft. Arena is a sport. Why should skilled boxers get better gear than the military? It doesn't make sense.
I love PvP and am pretty good at it, but three of my favorite characters are clothies.. its extremely difficult to get upgrades. I am in all deadly gear and furious non-set gear, but can not get to 1850 to get furious weapons. Its frustrating.
All the talk about grinding and what not makes no sense to me. Raiding week after week isn't grinding? Doing dailies isn't grinding? So for those of us that like BGs get nothing? Thats pretty unfair. Right now BGs are the only part of the game that we can't get good upgrades. Getting hateful gear in the furious season is hardly worth it.
They need to stop focusing on arena and focus a LOT more on BGs. Thise new BG is really exciting, but still.. if there isn't a pay off worthy of focusing on BGs instead of Arena you won't have many doing it.
jbodar Jun 17th 2009 2:55AM
I totally agree with Keleron here. If your objective in war is to kill the enemy while not giving a crap about resources and territory, you're just doing it wrong. Somehow, I don't think World of Genocidecraft would fly too well.
To carry the "boxer/military" analogy further, why isn't Arena gear standardized, like on the Tournament realm? Then it would only be about skill and comp. That's the whole point, right? The hardcore Arena-only junkies would play if only for the season rankings and rewards, but they would still earn gear for BGs and (dareIsay) World PVP.
RetPallyJil Jun 16th 2009 8:26PM
No, they're focusing too much on PvP - PERIOD.
Problem with a spec? Fix the spec for PvP and wreck it for PvE!
havitech Jun 16th 2009 8:41PM
The great thing about battlegrounds is that we (people who both PvP and PvE) can have our cake and eat it, too. The balancing restrictions are much, much looser, so it really shouldn't affect PvE as obscenely as balancing for arenas has.