^^^^ This.
No more QQ on roll

Two toons enter
Two toons leave (One with a better piece of gear).

Make an instant arena match for when ever 2 or more people need roll on the same item. Even if you can't do the match right away, because of in the middle of raid, etc. Have it scheduled for later when both parties can settle it. Hold the item in escrow until the match is over.

But like all suggestions there will be some flaw in my thinking I am sure someone will point out.

Either I'm way too sick, or you're a true master of sarcasm, but...

...wtb duel?

SithLlenniuq: Your proposal intrigues me. It would certainly help alleviate the problem of Healers getting gear over DPS. Since, as anyone can see, better gear on DPS helps the raid, but anything beyond what is just necessary on a healer is merely insurance against the raiders drinking retard juice.

The only difficulty I foresee is if the match were between two healers.

Problems only arise when an easily accessible game has the potential to be competive. The problem isn't in the competitive nature of the game, it's because of the people playing the game (which is so easily accessible that it isn't even funny).

We've got casual players, hardcore players, raiders, non-raiders, PvPers, non-PvPers, arena junkies, and spam bots.

When you put a casual player and hardcore player in the same sandbox, problems arise because the casual will almost always cry foul to the hardcore player who is doing better than them. The solution? Handouts for casuals and making harder content optional.

When you put a raider in a group with a non-raider, then the non-raider cries foul when the raider is doing better than them. The solution is to handout gear and limit how much better real raid gear is.

When you've got PvPers facerolling non-PvPers in battlegrounds or Wintergrasp or whatever-the-hell have you, then non-PvPers cry foul because they don't know the rules of engagement. The solution is free PvP gear and watering down the objectives so you don't technically have to PvP to win.

When you've got arena junkies going up against arena junkies, then whoever sucks cries foul because they got knocked off their high horse by someone better. The solution? Bitch about it until whoever you lost to gets nerfed.

And then spam bots just suck.


The fix for all of this? Attunements for raiding; removal of arena for PvP, at least until PvP works with solid mechanics, as opposed to taking the fundamentals of PvE and hacking together a set of restrictions.

SithLlenniuq - Your idea is really nice. My idea was just having the two teleport magically to an arena, but that does put the raid/party on hold. Your idea allows the flow to continue, but it also can increase the contested players' tension. I do get frustrated sometimes in those situations.

Dysmorphia - The problem with Healers getting gear over DPS is many people prioritize healers first because they keep everyone alive and since DPS can be seen as interchangeable for every class can DPS. But as a Tank, I like having Healers with good gear, but I'd be a fool to say that they should be getting gear over DPS.

Someone once told me: Healers keep Tanks alive, Tanks keep the aggro, so DPS can get the job done.

Avan - You did a nice breakdown of everything. But there will always be jerks who cry foul every time things don't go their way. Maybe if the system had some sort of Raid Leader sign-off where the Raid Leader can make the decision for people to duel in the arena before hand. This way, these people who cry when their knees get skinned will have less chances to do so.

"Competition spoils the spirit of every sport."

I know this isn't very WoW related; but I couldn't resist to correct this statement.

The very phenomenon of a "sport" is more often than not structered around the phenomenon of competition. While in our language the concept of sport has many different uses -- the more prominent use of the word typically involves the notion of competition. Think of ESPN's "SPORTScenter"; or think of when someone says, "I am going to a sporting event" this weekend; usually in these uses we are referring to events where one or more forces are in contest with one another -- and the notion of contest necessarily involves the notion of a victor and a loser. Now, we may use the word sport in other circumstances very similar to the meaning of game which may or may not involve competion between two or more foces. In this sense the meaning of sport or game is used to contrast events or activities that are of a more serious nature -- thinking of a game or sport as something that is done for pure fun as opposed to pure work.

So, I would argue that it is almost a complete contradiction in terms if you say that competition ruins the nature of sports when more than 90% of the time we use the term sport to talk about events that necessarily involve competition: ie. baseball, soccer, racing, poker, and yes... even video games.