Blood Sport: Arena should be more like rated battlegrounds
Rated battlegrounds -- like them or love them, they're here to stay. While rated battlegrounds aren't perfect, they're definitely a lot of fun and a great way to pass the time. One of the things Blizzard placed a heavy emphasis on with rated battlegrounds, which you may or may not have noticed, is the simple and elegant rating system. The rated battleground (or RBG) system is pretty different than most other systems in the game.
I've been very impressed with it -- so impressed that I believe Blizzard should just copy it for arena. The whole world (of Warcraft) would benefit from making arenas more like rated battlegrounds, at least in this regard.
Differences in the systems
Here's a very brief summary of how the arena and rated battleground systems are different. (If you already know all this stuff, you can just skip to "Team hopping is awesome.")
Arena
- Team rating (TR) The ranking of your team, this factors in how many points you get per week if your personal rating is close enough to it and your end-of-season rewards.
- Personal rating (PR) The ranking of you as an individual, this factors in how many points you get per week. PR was designed to stop cheaters within the arena system.
- Matchmaking rating (MMR) The number assigned to your team when the arena system queues you up. Teams with similar MMR will be paired against each other.
- Personal rating (PR) Your rating determines how many points you get per week. That's it.
- Matchmaking rating (MMR) The combined PR of everyone on your RBG team. The system is designed to pair teams with similar MMRs.
My favorite part of playing arena in The Burning Crusade was the ability to just leave the team I was on and go play games with someone else. On some Saturdays, I would play for 10 hours straight with 10 different teams. The only penalty I received was leaving a higher-rated team for a lower-rated team (and that penalty was offset, as I could just rejoin the higher-rated team later on in the week). I quickly made a name for myself in the arena community on my server because I played with all the PvPers. The only reason I was able to do this was because there was no penalty attached with team hopping. You didn't have a personal rating that reset to 0 every time you joined someone else's team; team rating was everything back then.
Well, that doesn't exist anymore. Players are punished very severely for leaving their regular team to play with real-life friends (who might be just getting into PvP) or just playing fun games with a low-rated team.
However, the rated battleground system allows for team hopping. Your rating is tied to you as a player. There are no rated battleground "teams" -- one doesn't sign a charter to play a game of 10v10. No, players instead just join a trade chat PuG and battle it out. Don't like the PuG? Just leave it and join another one later, or form your own. It's a really sweet system. If your server is active enough, you can play with 100 different people in a single day by team hopping around rated battleground teams.
I wish arena got a giant facelift by implementing this system. Having players carry around an individual rating for arenas might seem revolutionary -- because it is. That four-digit number 1,800 would really mean something. It ties your character with how well you're doing in PvP.
If a 2,500 player with a 2,500 team rating and personal rating leaves his 3v3 to go play with real-life friends, he loses everything. His personal rating is reset to 1,000 when he rejoins his 2,500 team. By playing with real-life friends, sure, he might tank his rating down to 2,200 or 2,100. However, wouldn't you rather get back rating from 2,100 rather than get it back from 1,000? I know I would.
If that player plays with other teams around 2,500, chances are he won't be losing that many points at all (unless of course, those teams lose all their games). Even then, he's probably not tanking down to 2,200 in a single sitting, and even if he does, he has gotten a lot more experience with other people and might have met some new friends in the process.
If there is one giant benefit to changing the arena system to a player-based rating, it's team hopping.
Gaming with friends
Arena doesn't facilitate playing with new players. When your team gets high enough, you're forced to play with the same people week after week. Rated battlegrounds? Not the case. You can freely jump from one rated battleground team to another without any problems.
While I alluded to this in the previous paragraph, making friends is worth talking about at length. MMORPGs are based, in large part, on player interaction -- when player interaction dies, the MMO gets a lot less fun. I applauded the dungeon finder when it first came out -- heroics were made so much more accessible! It was awesome! But then I started noticing that player interaction from people on my server got much less interrelated. Getting people I knew together for a string of heroics was a big deal! I really enjoyed showing people how good I was at pumping out DPS, or healing my entire party up when things got heavy.
PvP is the same way. When you PvP with more players, you're excited to meet people who are good at PvP (or just make you laugh really hard) so you can play with them again. Rated battlegrounds have a bit of a monopoly on come-as-you-are PvP. I wish arenas were made more accessible to the masses so I could discover diamonds in the rough.
Just recently, I was PvPing with a priest in Arathi Basin. He kept me up through five people DPSing me down. I was pleasantly surprised at his ability to heal -- after he went OOM, I died, and he was still able to keep himself alive until I got back into the action. We fought five players off by ourselves -- just the two of us!
I invited him to my arena team, and we did a lot of games together. He's pretty awesome. He never really PvPed before, although he really enjoys being a valuable member of the team. I definitely snatched up a diamond in the rough with him. If there were more opportunities for players to connect via arena, this kind of thing would happen much more often. I'd love for that to happen.
Listening Music: Fireworks, by The Whitest Boy Alive
Want to ascend the arena ladders faster than a fireman playing Donkey Kong? We'll steer you to victory with the best arena addons and let you in on some rank 1 gladiator PvP secrets. If you're looking for the inside line on battlegrounds and world PvP, read The Art of War(craft).
Filed under: PvP, Blood Sport (Arena PvP)






Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Grock Apr 5th 2011 5:36PM
I don't know if I'm alone in this, but prior to Cataclysm, I hated Arenas. Everything was far too fast paced, and the whole 2 GCD burst thing really turned me off to it. However, now that things have slowed down, I really appreciate the arena for more tactical thinking.
I was really looking forward to rated battlegrounds, but when I finally got a chance to actually play in them (you *have* to have at least 10 people? I had a hard enough time even getting into a team of 5 for arenas, and they played a grand total of 1 week) it was a complete disaster. We kept getting paired with players who were totally out of our league, and it was entirely demoralizing. I can understand 5 close games and losing them all. That means we need to work on our comp/teamwork. But 5 games that resulted in graveyard camping before the flags even came back after the first cap? There was absolutely nothing we could do.
Anyway, before I get too carried away and off topic, if making arenas more like rated battlegrounds results in the broken system RBGs have now, please please please please Blizzard...NEVER do it.
Redbeard Apr 5th 2011 7:31PM
I'm with you, Grock. The few times I stepped into a rated BG my team got obliterated. "Shooting fish in a barrel" doesn't do it justice.
Talarian Apr 5th 2011 7:58PM
I mostly agree with C. Moore here, but I see what Grock is saying too. Because it is difficult to pull together a 10-man, PuG, RBG team on many servers, the majority of RBG teams seem to be guild based. I know that when I RBG I do so almost exclusively with my guild, which is PvP oriented. In turn, many teams we play are all from one guild too. Because of this, I imagine that it is very frustrating for a purely PuG'ed team to jump in (without the strong, strategic background and knowledge of teammate strengths/weaknesses that a guild team is likely to bring to bear). The few times we have played a team comprised of many different guild names, we've usually dominated them.
I'm not sure what the solution to this entry-level "tax" is. Blizzard has already removed the 15-man RBG bracket in hopes of making it easier to form teams but so far I still see mostly only guild groups. I'm not sure if there even is a solution. Consider raiding: how often do you pull a PuG'ed BoT run together and have it go well? For me, the answer is "rarely". My only real success in raids is when I am lucky enough to pick up a PuG spot on a raid that is, otherwise, a guild run. Again, this is due to the inherent increase in organization that generally goes along with guild sponsored activities.
One would think, however, that if more PuG RBG teams were making their way into the fights that there would be a larger pool of teams at lower Average Team Rating levels and, thusly, fewer mismatches with teams that have very high ratings. Perhaps Blizzard could institute some sort of a "welfare" program where a player who has a Personal Rating below, say, 1000, gets bonus honor points, even when they lose, as it currently stands in Random Battlegrounds. That way a player that isn't yet fully outfitted in the honor point PvP gear would still be interested in getting into RBG's because 1) you will certainly be more organized than a Random Battleground group would be, 2) even if you face a vastly superior team, you still win honor points that can you use for better gear (even if the honor is scant), and 3) you still have a chance to earn conquest points if you can scrabble together a win. I imagine that part of the turn off for low level teams that are getting smashed is that when you lose, you get NOTHING. Nothing other than a pride obliterating slap in the face, that is.
Baba Apr 5th 2011 8:18PM
Same here, I've only seen two R-BG teams being created in trade since cataclysm rolled out, and I've played a total of 3 games. Not that many I know, but our team just got destroyed each time, and that made everyone quit.
Maybe R-BG teams are really popular on PvP realms, but on my PvE realm it's as quiet as a tomb.
dengarsw Apr 5th 2011 9:18PM
Mr. Moore's server must be awesome, since on Dragonmaw, tradechat teams are a thing to fear, not because they're good, but because of the drama and general low performance. Some are good, no doubt, but for the most part, IF you find an RBG team, and IF they get a team, you're more than likely to see them back in trade after their first game.
Few people have the tolerance for RBGs, being spoiled by pre-mades vs. PUGs or assuming RBGs were be easy mode conquest. RBGs were one thing I was looking forward to, but most of what I hear across the servers is that there's not a strong community for it. I think Mr. Moore's articles tend to be the ones most excited about RBGs, while the GMs, officers, and random players I talk to are universally frustrated with the system (either wanting easier access or, more often, acknowledging that most serious RBGers don't group outside their guilds, and when their guild stops running them, opt for other games instead of working on alliances.
russ sneed Apr 6th 2011 11:41AM
The title blew my mind. RBGs are the most disappointing part of Cata. They are everything that they should not be. I wanted them more than anything and now I can't even do them because I am not in a pvp guild. Lets be serious, you go into RBGs in a pug and you will get destroyed.
All they are is 10 v 10 arena that happen to take place in BGs. Arena players already have arena.
wrinklestein Apr 5th 2011 6:17PM
"Players are punished very severely for leaving their regular team to play with real-life friends (who might be just getting into PvP) or just playing fun games with a low-rated team."
No, they're not. Isn't that what skirmishes are for?
Avan Apr 5th 2011 6:41PM
Weren't skirmishes removed? It's been awhile since I visited the arena master myself, but last I heard there isn't an option for skirmishes anymore.
sheets_brandon Apr 5th 2011 7:17PM
Skirmishes are indeed gone, having been replaced with War Games.
I am not a fan of this change, as skirmishes were one of my favorite WoW activities, being a prime choice when waiting on a raid or just trying to keep pvp skills sharp when your friends were not online.
RIP skirmishes. You were a friend to all.
Matrillik Apr 5th 2011 7:34PM
It is what skirmishes WERE for. I'm still not sure why it was necessary to remove them from the game. Now I have to farm herbs while i wait in bg queues. Boring.
Damianogre Apr 8th 2011 8:02AM
In one sense I agree with you, but I wish we could make RBG teams like we make arena teams. I currently am having a very tough time getting players to commit to a weekly schedule of any kind. I hate to pug, but getting guildees to actually care about RBG's is almost impossible.
Bossy Apr 5th 2011 6:25PM
Excuse me, I play this game for more than 5 years ... and ... what are rated Bg's ?
Because ... I play on high and medium servers and I couldn't find ANYONE to play these ...
Oh our PVE guild tried to do it ... once and got owned. We lasted 2 minutes in AB with one kill for our whole team.
I mean I LOVE BG's but I have yet even to find one single group on 2 realms wanting to do a single rated BG.
Rated BG's must be one of the WORST things ever in WOW, since I WANT to play them but the problem is simple: no one wants to do them on most servers...
I think the old system of the old BG titles was 10 times better.
Bad really badly implemented. It shows only 2 posts reacted to this article.
WHEN IS BLIZZARD GOING TOI REALISE THEY NEED TO CREATE CONTENT FOR 97% OF THEIR PLAYERS AND NOT FOR 0.1% ELITIST JERKS.
Avan Apr 5th 2011 6:46PM
Sorry, but two realms is not "most servers."
Matrillik Apr 5th 2011 7:36PM
No one cares about what you have to say. Go away.
Saeadame Apr 6th 2011 5:49AM
I think you're just on the wrong servers - I see at least 2 or 3 PUG RBGs in trade chat every day, and I see a number of PvP guilds recruiting for RBGs. A few of my friends have joined the PUG ones and, while they have some pretty high resilience requirements (usually around 3k+ resilience), it means the PUG groups actually do pretty good even against guild teams.
Anyway, my server is a very high pop server (people regularly PUG 6/6 BWD and 4/4 BoT, sometimes HMs even), so that probably factors in quite a bit. Plus, my server is a PvP server, even though there's only about 1500 alliance for about 21 000 horde, it still means we attract a lot of the PvPing crowd.
Alantu Apr 6th 2011 9:02AM
I'm on a medium pop. server, and we do rBGs every weekend.
JonGalt Apr 5th 2011 6:48PM
Both systems have some severe problems.
You highlight the problems in arenas well. I think going back to a BC system and/or relaxing the penalty for switching (i.e. put plateaus in at 1500, 2k, 2.5k, etc. where above a certain rating you only drop to one lower plateau) It's not unusual to face fully Vicious geared people with 2200 weapons starting around 1700 just because of the ridiculous way MMR/TR/PR interact. It probably wouldn't be so bad if you didn't get 4 points for beating someone around your skill/gear level and lose 15-20 points to Rank 1 comps in full Vicious that happened to move teams or something.
At the same time, outside of high pop servers, rated BGs just don't happen. When they do, they are trade chat pugs. Since there are so few teams playing rated BGs, you start facing 1600-1700 teams the first time you step in there. Accordingly, it's not unusual to have an arduous 10 minute loss to a team you had no chance against in the first place, which never happens in arenas. I can honestly say, I have never had fun playing an RBG.
Anyway, what they should really do is bring back the ELO system from the early seasons (1-4 I think) and add some kind of less stringent deterrence for team hopping.
rlspaulding Apr 5th 2011 6:55PM
Correct me if I'm wrong but there are no longer skirmishes.
Also, more often than not the situation being referenced involves a friend who may or may not suck at PVP wishing to just get his games in for points, but really wants your help! A skrim won't let you help him get points, sure you can argue skrims will help you teach him or her but the fact of the matter is the majority of players wishing to play with friends is that they also wish to not necessarily boost their buddies points but to aid them in getting more. (Yes a lot of boosting does occur but that's not rly my point). Just saying that skrims don't solve this...... I know they did something like war games but I can't even find that option...is that just a rated bg thing too? Anywho..... has anyone complaining about not finding a rated BG even spent time looking for one?
I mean actually sitting in trade for 15minutes..... and even longer..... asking for others to play with? Most of the time groups aren't actively recruiting others for these RBGs, but when they see people interested they'll whisper them and pick them up, at least for another time if not right then.
A lot of pvp guilds are out there that don't rly raid, and they enjoy the occasional friends list bg'r to pick up when a normal memeber doesn't show.
A lot of negative QQ going on so far but this really is a grand idea, the entire post.
I concur!
Jabadabadana Apr 5th 2011 7:06PM
Rated Bg's have one problem with the rating system, and I've been on both sides of it...
Not enough people do them for their to be an accurate range to fight.
I've been +/- 1000 points on multiple occasions for total team rating, because that's all the finder could get for us.
Random pve guilds wouldn't get stomped, if more of them did it, because they would play each other. In arena, if you are low geared / new to the game, you play, or quickly start playing other people in your range. Not the case in RBGs.
Moral of the story... More of you start doing RBG's!!!
Bossy Apr 5th 2011 7:08PM
Some big failures in CATA.
Rated BG's was certainly one of them. I had such high hopes going for PvP titles etc...
But the old system of grinding PvP was simply better to suit the average player.
Now CATA had ... a lot of these failures, like a very mediocre new profession, archeology. I means I thought Blizzard DELETED all things that were no fun, but hey archeology is NOT fun Blizzard.
As is the out leveling (and so no challenge of 1-60 content) and the worst part of CATA is perhaps it lacks ANY cohesion in zones. The new end game zones are filled up pieces in an old puzzle.
No wonder WOW loses players these days ...
And the failure of rated BG's is one of the many reasons.
Now I am not quiting, no Sir, but the next expansion can't come quick enough if we still want to stay with more than a million players on each continent.
And they better have some new trics coming because a new failure like rated Bg's and archeology would be catastrophic.
Btw they deleted the end game leveling( how was it called again?) 6 months before Cata launch and they deleted guild perks, so perhaps we should be thankful they realised even more things were not in tune with this fantastic game we had.
Blizzard is losing credibility here.