Dec 22nd 2009 4:49PM An alternate answer to the trinity would involve something like this:
1) Collision detection.
We assumed it was in place all those years ago in D&D because your DM didn't let you walk through Monsters. The Big Bad didn't get to your mage or your healer (if you had one) simply because the other party members shielded them through positioning. You didn't have a tank. You simply had the player the monster could reach (via melee, magic or range). Spread your party too thin and it could reach all of you. Position wisely and you could mitigate the number of players taking damage. There was no 'threat list'. Your tactics and positioning had to change based on the number of opponents, the terrain, how intelligent they were, and the opponents culture.
2) Limited Healing:
You didn't have to have any specific roles filled. Everyone could dps, everyone had abilities that could make specific encounters easier (but none were required), there were roles that could heal but that was usually done AFTER the fight to get everyone back up and speed the party along to the next encounter.
It was a matter of convenience and cost but not a requirement for getting the job done.
A system such as this awards 'skill' since it's group tactics that win the field in pvp and pve. This isn't so much 'thinking outside the box' as 'thinking back to your old boxed set in the closet'.
Jul 10th 2008 12:02PM @Heilig
Hunter's 'mobile shot rotation'? There is no such thing. Hunters have to be stationary to achieve a true shot rotation. Stationary in arena = dead.
There are not "plenty" of hunters in the top arena brackets. The one consistent factor in S1, S2, & S3 of the arena is that hunters did not meet blizz's projected representation levels in ALL catagories. I play and arena on 4 servers/battle groups and I have never seen a hunter with a season 3 or 4 bow or gun.
Megatf who wrote the 'how to guide' on Hunter/Druid teams on the Blizz website, QUIT the hunter class because of how they fair in the arenas vs other classes.
Jun 30th 2008 11:03AM "At the moment, Blizzard's focus seems to be on the PvP environments, rather than the participants themselves." Zach said it all right there.
Jun 24th 2008 3:30PM I'm not going to be playing the arena in season 4. Three seasons of imbalance is enough for me.
It's funny because although BG's take longer and require more group coordination and allow players their full use of skills/abilities the rewards are so much smaller. It's like saying the highest tier PVE gear should be available in 5 mans, and that 25 man raids should give smaller rewards.
If Blizz simply had a BG set of gear that looked entirely different than arena and PVE gear which had equal quality stats, no one would complain. People who liked PVE could play that. Arena junkies could have their fun. And BG fans could have their own too.
Instead Blizz tries to force the arena on PVE players and BG players because they want to be an 'e' sport. To add insult to injury, they are lazy and reskin all the gear which then further leads to complains by PVE players. Then they take the few pieces of viable BG gear and slap arena requirements on it.
So yes I am glad I am going to be in the Warhammer open beta.
Jun 23rd 2008 9:14AM With the start of season 4 I am quiting the arena actually. I'm going to stick to BG's and PVE where toons can use the full range of their abilities.
Jun 16th 2008 4:36PM The problem is this IS a solo game at its basic level until you reach 70.
Then it becomes a very different game (the End Game). PVE content requires a group to advance. PVP- arena requires a group to advance. PVP- Battlegrounds, does not require a group but also does not offer 'competitive' PVP gear (my personal opinion only).
And when we talk about groups we have to assume competent well organized groups, otherwise, once again you're not getting much accomplished. Now let's pause and consider the viability of competent well organized pugs... does this happen often in people's experience? If not then once again we will need a competent well organized guild to back us up.
Now is all this a bad thing? Perhaps not, but is it a radical departure from the way 1-69 is set up? Many would argue, yes.
It would be interesting to see the Blizz developers open up the dialogue on this issue abit more instead of their canned responses.
Jul 26th 2007 9:02PM Me!