Infraction for morohtar: General Idiocy

◊ Kaubel · 05/18/08, 2:36 PM

Post: New Arena Gear Rating Requirements
User: morohtar
Infraction: General Idiocy
Points: 1

Administrative Note:

Message to User:

You need to learn how to construct a response without splitting quotes up.

Original Post:

Originally Posted by mofidik

The reason why representation numbers for hunters are in no way related to how good they are has been beaten to death. Hunters take more skill than avarage to play and so does their partner (same for rogue/druid for example, amazing setup, but it just requires ten times the druid one with a warrior or warlock would, so it's less popular), that and the fact that lots of people chose a hunter as a farming alt etc means your data means nothing as to how well a hunter _can_ perform. And even then, if hunters would infact be terrible, that still doesn't mean you can't break the personal rating requirements if you'd be good. I don't know if you like hearing it so much but if you can't atleast get to 1850, YOU'RE THE PROBLEM YOURSELF.

No need to yell at me. It's ironic that as someone who not too long ago said to me, "I strongly suggest you stop your unfounded and stupid claims now.", you seem to be making a huge claim with no data about how hunters are only played as farming alts. I showed you my data, now show me yours. Even if you are correct in your guesstimation about so many hunters not PVPing, doesn't that in itself show a problem with the system?

Originally Posted by mofidik

I played a shaman in blues/greens, I know what it's like to suck in arenas, but I made an effort and got to a (for that gear) respectable ~1750 rating. And you know what? I enjoyed being the underdog more than having loot handed to me. I had to work for what I got, not just spend time. Spending time looking at your lawn doesn't reward money for gardening either, mowing it does.

I am happy that you are a rare success case. But what if you are in a competition to cut your grass the fastest (all yards being assumed equal in size), and are told that you have to use the mower you have in your garage, but your lawn mower is much smaller and bogs down more than any other model in the competition? And you are then told that only the fastest cutters could get new mowers for next year's competition? What if your competition had riding mowers (resto druids/MS warriors in 2s)? I know, it's the worst stretch of examples I've ever had 'pre-morning coffee', but it gets my points across. There are classes (forget specs) that are not equitable to play in arena, therefore a system that requires high achievement fails those classes, not the other way around.

Originally Posted by mofidik

The BG system is a huge failure for two reasons. First off, like you said, it's a time sink that requires no skill at all. Secondly, you need to do it to arena. That has always pissed arena players off, and now suddenly it's a huge problem since you actually need to have some kind of skill to get gear? It just doesn't make sense, don't you play a game to have challanges? It's not all about showing your welfare epix off in shatt. It's about having fun in a game, not impressing fat inspect geeks, y'know.

I am not sure why you feel BGs take no skill. Yes, there is a much greater chance for success when someone fails than say, raids, but you still get very little for losing when looking at 3 marks vs 1 mark and a hell of a lot less honor (AV is special). BGs are such a casual fun part of this game to many of the non-hardcore people that I know. It seems wrong to make those people arena just to get gear that already has a huge timesink in marks/honor. At least reduce some of the requirements if I also have to have arena ratings.

Originally Posted by mofidik

And yes, if a game would be too hard for me, I'd either quit or learn it. Take the easy way or take the hard way, but don't drag the only competative PvP system in the game down to the pool of what the carebears do with their time, or atleast don't justify this because you in particular couldn't compete. There's always BGs, dailies and heroics to waste your precious time on while arena players have a challange.

BGs can't be done without arena anymore. They are now pretty much tied together. But aside from that, you are not understanding my point. Let's look at sports since arena is gearing up to be an E-sport. Should players that are stuck in minor leagues not get paid? Should they not be able to update their gear each season? Should they only be able to upgrade their pants and shirts since they are not major league players, and only major league teams can upgrade their bats and mits? They may never be in the major leagues, but does that mean they are not competitive and putting in time? If I, as a hunter, am forever stuck in the 1700s, does that mean I am a total failure to huntering in PVP and not putting in proper time? Could the system be failing me?

Telling me that all classes can succeed if they practice hard enough is true to an extent. Sure there may be some hunters in 5s that do very well when surrounded by amazing classes. That's all fine and dandy...but what bothers me is that there is a rating system to get gear, but some classes don't have an equal chance to get that gear. Telling me I have to do 5s (and even then unlikely based on the data) with much less chances for success at 2s/3s with my class seems like a broken system. Any 2/3 classes working together with similar skill should have an equal chance of winning in all brackets for there to be balance and fairness within a rating system for gear.