Originally Posted by lairpie
What would people opposed to these changes like to see instead? Propose another way that meets the goal of making it an actual achievement to get pvp gear somewhere remotely on the level of difficulty, even if not time commitment, of getting equivalent pve gear. Its pretty easy to point out the flaws that will always exist in any system, but I've never seen a plan for how to do it any better that wasn't just as riddled with holes.
|
To re-iterate, I have no opinion on these changes, as I'm not a serious pvp'er.
To answer your question, I'll mention the rank system in Netrek. For that, to go up a rank (Ensign, Lt, Cmdr, Capt, Fleet Capt, Commodore, Admiral), you needed to have X personal rating after N hours. (I'm heavily glossing over details.) Generally, N and X went up by 1 for each rank, with X starting at 2.0 (very easy to attain) and N being 0.0 (there was a way to get 2.0 rating within seconds of starting that involved a highly obscure manner, but it did happen, which was amusing).
As you might imagine, personal ratings plateau, so how could people hit Admiral? Well, either have an 8.0 rating after 6 hours of play... or they could "double into Admiral" by having a 7.0 rating after 12 hours of play, or "quad" by having a 6.0 rating after 24 hours of play.
Naturally, "single" Admirals were highly respected, but still a quad Admiral was someone who was still pretty good. So the first benchmark was, could you single into Fleet Captain, because if so, as long as you maintained the same level of play, you were guaranteed to quad into Admiral.
Could this be applied to warcraft pvp? Maybe. One thing to note is that, in netrek, rank is 99.8% aesthetic; in warcraft, PR/TR ratings has much more an impact (it enables what you can get).
<hr>
I'm not sure there's consensus on first principles. Which is more important: keeping a high level of participation in arenas? Or locking a certain PR and/or TR out of gear? I believe those two tenets are mutually contradicting.