Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

More specifics about PvP gear in Cata...Follow

#1 Sep 28 2010 at 2:50 AM Rating: Good
Does it from behind...
*****
13,048 posts
Quote:
The only item with a meaningful rating requirement is the heroic raid ilvl equivalent weapon (the 2200 weapon). However, unlike the LK seasons there is also a weapon equivalent to the normal raid tier ilvl that has no rating requirement.

All of the other items with rating requirements (ie: the set pieces) have the exact same stats as the ones without rating requirements, they're a free upgrade and just have a different texture color so you get a little bit of visual distinction for having a high rating (no gameplay advantage). (Source)

Via mmo-champion.

Looks like a great plan to me. Buy gear once, and get a free upgrade to a new color for having a better rating. Also like the fact that we won't need to PvE for decent weapons to get to even on Alta and new characters.

This is how it should have been from the beginning, in my opinion. A high tier of weapons with rating requirements, and visual differences in gear rather than stat-based at higher ratings, much like the 2300-tabard is now.
____________________________
The·oph·a·ny (thē-ŏf'ə-nē)
An appearance of a god to a human; a divine manifestation.
Rogue Hunter
#2 Sep 28 2010 at 6:41 AM Rating: Excellent
****
4,059 posts
I approve this plan. In particular the availability of two weapons. I like that they're still keeping in some rewards for people with higher ratings.

I'd like to get greedy and ask for yet a third tier weapon that's available for honor points only, similar to what they'll be doing with armor, but maybe that's something they'll do later in the expansion when there are more tiers.
#3 Sep 28 2010 at 4:18 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,912 posts
Overlord Theophany wrote:
Quote:
The only item with a meaningful rating requirement is the heroic raid ilvl equivalent weapon (the 2200 weapon). However, unlike the LK seasons there is also a weapon equivalent to the normal raid tier ilvl that has no rating requirement.

All of the other items with rating requirements (ie: the set pieces) have the exact same stats as the ones without rating requirements, they're a free upgrade and just have a different texture color so you get a little bit of visual distinction for having a high rating (no gameplay advantage). (Source)

Via mmo-champion.

Looks like a great plan to me. Buy gear once, and get a free upgrade to a new color for having a better rating. Also like the fact that we won't need to PvE for decent weapons to get to even on Alta and new characters.

This is how it should have been from the beginning, in my opinion. A high tier of weapons with rating requirements, and visual differences in gear rather than stat-based at higher ratings, much like the 2300-tabard is now.


Looks good at first sight.

So if you suck you have equal stats as better players but your armor will visually scream to the world that you have a poor rating. And if you have a high rating you'll be a walking neon sign that says "fear me, I'm mean, and I'm about to turn you into proof".

Like in martial arts, you see the guy wearing a black belt, he's the master, no questions asked.

Edited, Sep 28th 2010 6:19pm by xorq
____________________________
NOTE: I may post comments about my like/dislike/approval/disapproval of game features.
1- They are NOT a complaint. They are a perspective.
2- They are NOT advocacy. They are a perspective.

Overlord Theophany wrote:
Insults aren't needed
#4 Sep 28 2010 at 4:32 PM Rating: Good
*****
14,174 posts
I doubt everyone will bother to gem and enchant another set of gear, but it's a neat idea.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#5 Sep 28 2010 at 6:43 PM Rating: Decent
Does it from behind...
*****
13,048 posts
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
I doubt everyone will bother to gem and enchant another set of gear, but it's a neat idea.

I certainly won't, but the top PvPers are a vain bunch.

I'd probably grab another pair of boots and a new helm though to put engineering enchants on them that don't work in arena for use in BGs.
____________________________
The·oph·a·ny (thē-ŏf'ə-nē)
An appearance of a god to a human; a divine manifestation.
Rogue Hunter
#6 Sep 29 2010 at 6:02 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
3,450 posts
Idunno about this...if you don't lose rating from a loss...won't everyone be on the same playing field? If so how can you really tell the pros from the baddies? /confused
____________________________
WoW -2.2k Disc, 2.1k RDruid, 2.1k Rsham. 2k Hunter, 2k DK, 1950 War, 1900 Ret.
Duelist, Hotter Streak

FFXIV - 8 Lancer

FFXI(Retired)- 50 SMN, 39 BST.

#7 Sep 29 2010 at 6:40 AM Rating: Excellent
****
4,059 posts
Zornov wrote:
Idunno about this...if you don't lose rating from a loss...won't everyone be on the same playing field? If so how can you really tell the pros from the baddies? /confused


It shouldn't matter whether you lose rating for a loss as long as you're gaining rating for a win. Presumably the good people will win more and therefore have higher ratings.

It also appears as though you can only get conquest points from winning either arena or rated battlegrounds, as opposed to the current system where you get points for just showing up in arena. People who aren't very good are going to accrue points much more slowly and likely be a tier behind in gear for most or all of the season because of it.

Edited, Sep 29th 2010 8:40am by teacake
#8 Sep 29 2010 at 7:08 AM Rating: Good
*****
14,174 posts
Zornov wrote:
Idunno about this...if you don't lose rating from a loss...won't everyone be on the same playing field? If so how can you really tell the pros from the baddies? /confused


Wait, what? Where does it say that?
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#9 Sep 29 2010 at 7:17 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
3,450 posts
Read it somewhere will try to dig it up unless someone else can sooner of course.
____________________________
WoW -2.2k Disc, 2.1k RDruid, 2.1k Rsham. 2k Hunter, 2k DK, 1950 War, 1900 Ret.
Duelist, Hotter Streak

FFXIV - 8 Lancer

FFXI(Retired)- 50 SMN, 39 BST.

#10 Sep 29 2010 at 10:07 AM Rating: Excellent
****
4,059 posts
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
Wait, what? Where does it say that?


Wayyy back when they first announced the rated battlegrounds. They were specific about saying you wouldn't lose rating for losses, but you wouldn't get points either. If you win, you get showered with rating and points. If you lose, you get rocks. But nobody is risking losing anything they've already got.

If I Google to look for it though I can find secondary sites that say this, but not the original Blizzard source.
#11 Sep 29 2010 at 7:45 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,912 posts
teacake wrote:
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
Wait, what? Where does it say that?


Wayyy back when they first announced the rated battlegrounds. They were specific about saying you wouldn't lose rating for losses, but you wouldn't get points either. If you win, you get showered with rating and points. If you lose, you get rocks. But nobody is risking losing anything they've already got.

If I Google to look for it though I can find secondary sites that say this, but not the original Blizzard source.


Secondary sites are good enough. Please do.

Personally, I'm in favor of the part where you don't get anything in the premade tier if all you do is play losing games on purpose or afking or doing nothing.

It's ok when you're put up with random people who you don't get to chose because very often you're going to pull your weight and lose because of the teammates you got. I've been in many strand of the ancient offensive rounds where I've lost after breaking 3 gates and capping 2 gys but I was the only one who broke any gates or capped any gys. And I'm not saying it from an "I am Nuck Chorris" perspective, I'm saying it from "they were farming kills or QQ-ing in chat while the objectives were so open that I could get that much done all by myself".

____________________________
NOTE: I may post comments about my like/dislike/approval/disapproval of game features.
1- They are NOT a complaint. They are a perspective.
2- They are NOT advocacy. They are a perspective.

Overlord Theophany wrote:
Insults aren't needed
#12 Sep 30 2010 at 5:13 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,699 posts
teacake wrote:
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
Wait, what? Where does it say that?


Wayyy back when they first announced the rated battlegrounds. They were specific about saying you wouldn't lose rating for losses, but you wouldn't get points either. If you win, you get showered with rating and points. If you lose, you get rocks. But nobody is risking losing anything they've already got.

If I Google to look for it though I can find secondary sites that say this, but not the original Blizzard source.


Might they have been saying that *below a certain threshold rating* you would not loose rating?

Let me just add that the way the "hidden" rating (the MMR) and your "visible" rating (arena team or personal rating) work does do this at the beginning:

Your MMR starts at 1500, your TR is at 0. Your TR moves as if you have won/lost to a foe with their MMR, and your MMR moves according to their MMR as well. This means until your TR catches up to your MMR, it will always appear you are defeating people way better then you and thus you are "showered" with TR points. However, once you catch up they tend to move together (although the MMR should be more responsive, eg move faster per win/loss).

I could see a system where you can't loose TR, but it would require you do not *gain* TR, even for wins, if your TR is higher then your MMR (or, say, I don't know, 200 points higher). If BG rating is what they are saying: cannot go down, then can you not just win only 10% of your matches and still climb up to larger and larger ratings? It would be very, very different from the arena rating and I can't imagine they would go that far.

Or is it possible that Bliz meant you will not loose whatever the super-honor-points are? It goes without saying that you roll into an instance and even if you eat floor you are not going to be stripped of badges of frost (or whatever the new points are called: justice?)

____________________________
Do the right thing.
#13 Sep 30 2010 at 7:21 PM Rating: Default
Does it from behind...
*****
13,048 posts
yossarian wrote:
Or is it possible that Bliz meant you will not loose whatever the super-honor-points are? It goes without saying that you roll into an instance and even if you eat floor you are not going to be stripped of badges of frost (or whatever the new points are called: justice?)

Conquest points. Pay attention if you're going to speculate.

And no, they've stated you won't lose rating for losing, but you also won't gain conquest points for losing, either. So you need to win to gain conquest points, and you can't just lose (like in arena) to get points.

I get the feeling that they're doing it so that people can try and not feel like failures, but they won't be getting gear very quickly at all if they don't do arena as well.
____________________________
The·oph·a·ny (thē-ŏf'ə-nē)
An appearance of a god to a human; a divine manifestation.
Rogue Hunter
#14 Oct 05 2010 at 8:37 AM Rating: Decent
***
3,879 posts
That's kewl - it really sucked that there were no LK PvP weapons that didn't require arena rep yet to have a chance in the arenas you needed to raid and get something that was already as good or better then the arena rep weapons.
#15 Oct 05 2010 at 11:25 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,912 posts
Overlord Theophany wrote:

And no, they've stated you won't lose rating for losing, but you also won't gain conquest points for losing, either. So you need to win to gain conquest points, and you can't just lose (like in arena) to get points.

I get the feeling that they're doing it so that people can try and not feel like failures, but they won't be getting gear very quickly at all if they don't do arena as well.


Well, a current problem with PvP gear system is that people would get into BGs and grind their honor by afking.

In the case of arenas I've seen many points teams who just bail before the match even starts and when the gate opens there's no fight, and people were getting points for that.

So I think it is a much better system to say "fight until you win 10 times" than to say "fight 10 times and you'll still get rewarded if you lose all 10".

Edited, Oct 6th 2010 1:26am by xorq
____________________________
NOTE: I may post comments about my like/dislike/approval/disapproval of game features.
1- They are NOT a complaint. They are a perspective.
2- They are NOT advocacy. They are a perspective.

Overlord Theophany wrote:
Insults aren't needed
#16 Oct 06 2010 at 11:01 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
2,346 posts
I like the fact that you can get pvp weapons without a rating. I just recently started getting into pvp and while not that good I could never get high enough to get weapons. That doesn't mean it'll make me amazing or anything but with the extra resil it would definitely help with some survivability.

I liked when people didn't care about winning though. I remember playing a rogue/druid in 2's I believe they had a combined 18k health total. I loved free wins.

I hope rated battlegrounds make them more fun to do. I always hated those incompetent people who didn't know what to do, or the people who simply didn't care. It will be nice if it'll make people play harder.
#17 Oct 10 2010 at 4:23 PM Rating: Decent
***
3,879 posts
Quote:
And no, they've stated you won't lose rating for losing, but you also won't gain conquest points for losing, either. So you need to win to gain conquest points, and you can't just lose (like in arena) to get points.


So in other words, if you're rated 500 and lose you wont go down to 495 but you wont get any points for the loss either.

If that's the case then I'm kewl with the concept - it means that less skilled people still have the opportunity to actually get up to a 1500 rating eventually while still preventing them from racking up enough points to be as well geared as someone who got there two months ago.

That's fair - it lets the less proficient players still have something to strive towards just as the frost badges allow the lower tier raiders a way to eventually gear up.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 9 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (9)