I was thinking about PvP titles at the end of the season. First of all: why is Duelist missing?
Second: Why don't u make it offy-like, based on % of teams? (challenger 30%-20%, rival 10%, duelist 3%, gladiator 1%, r1glad 0.5%) ?
I think it should be better since the population of the server is very high and 2v2 is very very active (rank 1 is 2400 and will get higher probably) so making it offy like will push more people to play. Talking about 2s only.
About 3v3 I don't know, maybe you can leave as it is now (rank 10 Challenger, rank x-x (i dont remember) Rival, rank 1-3 (i think) Gladiator. Or put offylike the titles based on % of teams, lowering the % obviously since the 3v3 is not active and everyone could get easily gladiator or duelist title.
What do you think about it?
-
Member
Gladiator/Duelist/Rival/Challenger
-
Member
Thumbs up, it actually makes sense since the number of arena teams has grown drastically with the merge, after all I think this change doesn't even affect low mmr teams, but only title-worthy players would manage to make top 30% of the ladder, them being both AT players or Gladiators/Rival in past seasons.
-
Member
I agree with this, awarding titles according to percentages like on retail would greatly increase activity of arenas, but awarding titles from 2v2 bracket is just stupid. Make it only obtainable from 3v3 and set a lowest rating limit to be eligible (like 1700 3v3 rating for duelist). Players need some motivation to play 3v3 bracket (widely accepted as most skilled of three).
-
Wind of Northrend
3v3 r10 last season was 1k rating. Just let that sink in.
-
Member
Thats why i said: 3v3 make lets say challenger top 5 gladiator rank 1 duelists rank 2 rival rank 3 something like... since the bracket is dead.
Giving titles to 2v2 imho isnt' that bad. We all know even with all the effort from staff to make the 3v3 enjoyable, the bracet won't be active like lets say on retail, or first years of AT. it was dead on AT, and it will be dead here too.
Also, as already said, rank 1 2v2 is 2400 which is not bad, instead, its a pretty good rating for a private server, considering AT in the last years had rank 1 at 2200~, so making title obtainable from 2s should be good, based on %.
R10 2v2 challenger is a joke, challenger is the lowest title for PvP and shold be obtainable at 1800-1900 something like. At the moment, having a challenger on this server means to be a duelist on retail, which is completely unbalanced and *****. (Again: where is duelist title??)
-
Wind of Northrend
It's fine the way it is now if it goes by % people will have Rival with 1.8k in 2's If anything they should make it more harder to obtain title mostly in 3's.
-
Member
Please give me ONE valid reason why titles should be obtained in 2v2. People don't have motivation to queue 3s, and titles in 2v2 is one of the reasons for that.
-
Member
You should put this in the realm suggestions since writing anything here won't really do anything.
I do agree, though. % based titles more accurately represents how players are relative to the season's activity.
However I think the titles should be more exclusive:
Top 0.1% Rank 1 Title
Top 0.5% Gladiator
Top 3% Duelist
Top 5% Rival
Top 10% Challenger
Just my opinion.
-
Field Medic Moderator
3's has never been very active on retail as well. Despite there being titles, mounts, etc. for that. The biggest reason is simply that it's just not as popular as 2's. There's plenty of valid reasons for 2's being more popular than just titles, and shifting the title awards would only have an effect on the people who actually want to tryhard for them, or people who wintrade/script/hack/etc. The effect would be very small. Most people who do arena, do arena for fun or for the gear. When people do it for gear, then get in and get out ASAP. Obviously which bracket it is in for this case is irrelevant, the behavior would remain the same. As for the people who do it for fun, it's far easier to hit up one of your buddies to queue with you for a bit, rather than 2 of your buddies, or 4 of them.
Punishing (read: demoralizing) people who play 2's, for whatever reason, by taking away those titles and granting them to the 3's bracket just because you, or whoever else, happen to like 3's better is silly. "But 3's is more balanced!" I have news for you: 5's is the closest you'll get to "balance" in this unbalanced game. So if you want to use this reasoning to validate moving 2's bracket titles to the 3's bracket, then we may as well just move them to the 5's bracket for the same reason.
-
Member
Agreed.
There's also already an incentive to do 3v3 on Warmane over 2v2 - the R1 title and the Magic Rooster. You can't get these by doing 2s.
-
Member
That incentive is only reserved to R1 team. I'm talking about giving an average Joe something to play for.
@Mercy: Well why did you remove titles from 5s then? "people who wintrade/script/hack/etc"- Here's the problem, that average Joe I mentioned above hears that top 3 for example teams are scripting, so he basically never even tries to queue 3s, because he knows that in the end he will waste his time. Also, wintrading/scripting and hacking should be staff's responsibility, just look at 5v5 ladder and you'll understand what I'm talking about.
-
Field Medic Moderator
I didn't remove anything - I'm a forum moderator.
That said, why give titles for a bracket that maybe 3 teams are active at all in?
Irrelevant.
-
Member
What I mean by "you" is the server administration, not you personally. And don't get me wrong, I do agree with it, but your argument was kinda contradictory (5v5 is most balanced bracket yet we removed titles from it). Also, I do believe that second part you quoted IS RELEVANT, cheating should be punished in whatever bracket it appears.
Also, as a suggestion, why don't you make an experimet? Why don't you try one or two seasons with a different title system, it would atleast bring some change and, who knows, people might find it more appealing? Yes, it may be harder to hand out rewards in the end, but it's not like GMs (or whoever hands them out) will have thousands of teams, more like 30-50, granted you set a reasonable lowest rating limit to be eligible to obtain it.
My 2c.
-
Wind of Northrend
pvp titles are exclusive rewards it shouldn't be easily obtainable like let's say Ambassador or something. Same concept as giving Medals at the olympics.. You can't just give out a huge amount of medal to top 10% of the people who participated from the start. It's exclusive and you should have to fight for it. Unless you've never done pvp in your life, you should know 1.8k is easily obtainable by anyone with decent enough gear just by playing. That would mean almost everyone would have pvp titles.
-
Field Medic Moderator
Personal opinion here, not an official one.
I dislike the idea of X % of top teams getting Y title. I would prefer a system of Rank 1 gets title X, Rank 2 gets title Y, etc. It's definitely more cut-throat that way, but it also makes people stay on top of their game if they care about those titles. The way I see it, competitively speaking, anything under Rank 1 means you lost. I consider all others to be "attempted to win" awards.
This isn't to say that I haven't had respect for the Gladiator title for a long time on retail. They do it on a percentage system, and with how the community is over there nowadays, you can easily pay to get carried to the title. I've seen it actually happen far to many times to consider treating the title with any respect. Rank 1, however.... is Rank 1. If you can buy yourself a carry to Rank 1, then that says quite a lot about the guy doing the carrying.
It's also even more difficult to respect the lower pvp title ranks for those reasons, in addition to considering the number of people who get those titles using scripts, hacks, exploits, etc.
So, yeah. Personally speaking. If you aren't Rank 1, I'm not going to care much about your title.
