Log in

View Full Version : Season 3 weapon.


Flawless
05-09-2007, 12:50 AM
http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=1371552601&pageNo=1&sid=1#8

Q_Q

Manidim
05-09-2007, 05:11 AM
Meh, it's not like there's another full gear reset coming up on the horizon or anything so.... WE'RE DOOMED!

Gwynin
05-09-2007, 01:19 PM
Far enough considering pve weapons are getting a bit buffed

Stim
06-09-2007, 07:44 AM
WTB 1900 rating team boost :S

Iyachtu
06-09-2007, 10:03 AM
I wonder if you need to maintain that 1900 rating to use the weapons, or if they simply require you to have reached 1900 at some point and bought the weapon.

Anyway, bad news for the people who play 10 games / week at 1000 rating to get a weapon or two.

Taurusos
06-09-2007, 11:07 AM
Tough.

Theleb
06-09-2007, 01:09 PM
You forgot to add;

/Tau

Again :)

But yeah, suck it up and either get to 1900 or gogo PvE madness - considering how good the Gladiators weapons are/were scrubbing at 1500 for a month or two is far too easymode.

Kinshara
06-09-2007, 01:21 PM
I wonder if you need to maintain that 1900 rating to use the weapons, or if they simply require you to have reached 1900 at some point and bought the weapon.

Anyway, bad news for the people who play 10 games / week at 1000 rating to get a weapon or two.

I suspect it'll be like pre-TBC R14 weapons -- you have to get to 1900 and buy them with the points you've saved, but after that still be able to use them even if your rating drops. (Otherwise you wouldn't be able to use them right away when a new season starts and everyone's sitting at 1500).

Guess we'll find out later though.

Gwynin
06-09-2007, 02:31 PM
That would mean it could be bypassed by joining a high rated team for a week, play some matches and then buy your weapon(s)

Shockwave
06-09-2007, 03:42 PM
I can't see the problem, personally. If they can come up with (and it's clear they've struggled) a way to reward players for 'good' PvP, without resulting in a sliding scale (the best get better, the lower get even more screwed than they were) fair play to them.

What needs to be avoided is the problem they've started to solve now with PvE, where only 10% of the population ever sees 50% of the 'content' [be that loot, instances, whatever].

It's their own fault in a way, the goal should be the achievement of downing that boss, topping the ladder, whatever, but they've incentivised everything for so long everyone expects 'ph4t l3wt' for pretty much everything, and if it isn't there, they go off to the forums to cry about it.

Good luck to them, I doubt it can be fixed at this point.

- Shockwave

Kinshara
06-09-2007, 03:48 PM
That would mean it could be bypassed by joining a high rated team for a week, play some matches and then buy your weapon(s)

Yeah, I thought of that... and I spose that people could buy a spot on a high rated team for that week, or shuffle guildies through if they wanted something.

Not something that's easily solved, they'll annoy somebody no matter what they do.

Vhairi
06-09-2007, 05:07 PM
I don't have a decent rating but I would prefer to win on Skill than because I outgear my opponent. As far as I am concerned give the 1000 rated players the same gear as me. If I am better I will win, If not I will lose.

/shrug

However, rating reqs for current season weapon don't bother me too much so long as that rating is dropped/reduced when a new season comes out.

Iyachtu
07-09-2007, 06:14 AM
No see, because arenas is alot about team setup.
Say your 5vs5 on 1700 rating all have full season 2 gear, and you get up against some
team with 1000 rating, they also have full set (yeah right) but their setup > yours, so they
win and you loose a shitload of points.

Valoran
07-09-2007, 12:39 PM
Biggest issue with this is that you'll have a ton of teams with ~1800 (or whatever just below the rating for weapons is) who keep facing teams with 1900 or above and being unable to win due to weapons giving them that slight advantage. Currently it's possible for people to just shrug off meeting people with better gear and wait for their own to improve, but eventually it'll get to the point where all you need are the weapons, and to get those you need to beat people who already have them. Then there's the fact that melee classes gain so much more from upgrading their weapons than casters do and you're forcing new 1500 rating teams to gear up on armor first.

Not a huge issue, but it'll probably cause a lot of whine.

Rey
07-09-2007, 12:42 PM
Ppl will qq, they'll nerf zul'amun and everyone will run around with some weapon from there that will be better than the s3 ones, or some new bs stuff.

Theleb
07-09-2007, 01:47 PM
Blizz have already said that there are no plans to upgrade Craftables, but I guess this is BEFORE the whine...

Flawless
07-09-2007, 02:06 PM
Ppl will qq, they'll nerf zul'amun and everyone will run around with some weapon from there that will be better than the s3 ones, or some new bs stuff.
QQ

Iyachtu
07-09-2007, 04:04 PM
Assuming 5vs5, a 1800-1900 team will be 'low' on melee, especially on cyclone.
Going to go out on a limb here and also assume that warrior
is the most used melee class in such a team.

So, the advantage of melee class with weapons is rather small,
given you usually only have one melee player.
But yeah i can see where this is going to cause frustration, when you know your team is good enough but simply cannot improve because of gear issues.
In this regard, it is more 'fair' to keep the current system i,e if you got the points, it's yours.

But blizzard will do their thing no matter what, like they've always done.

Myriima
07-09-2007, 08:31 PM
Thing is, high rated teams allready *sell* ratings. As in they join a lower rated team, raise it to a 2k+ mark and then go back to their own. Blizz said they want to deal with it, maybe it will work for the rating for weapons too

Theleb
07-09-2007, 08:50 PM
The amount of whine coming from the rogue forums (Where admitedly a weapon is a serious upgrade) is quite gargantuan.

I haven't seen 1800 or 1900 confirmed but I'd bet that its going to be the latter - "Good" pvp or "Good" pve players get the rewards (to quote blizzard).

Stim
10-09-2007, 07:13 AM
Make it 2400 and nobody in Cyclone ever gets it :P

Iyachtu
10-09-2007, 09:40 AM
Make it 2400 and nobody on Shadowsong ever gets it :P

Fixed.

Magnus
10-09-2007, 10:38 AM
Thing is, high rated teams allready *sell* ratings. As in they join a lower rated team, raise it to a 2k+ mark and then go back to their own. Blizz said they want to deal with it

There's a simple and easy solution to that, just change it so you can only switch teams ones a month. It will seriously kill off something like that, yet still make it easy for anyone who moves on to a new team.

Corruption
10-09-2007, 11:08 AM
Fixed.

Hater.

Elayna
15-09-2007, 07:37 PM
Biggest issue with this is that you'll have a ton of teams with ~1800 (or whatever just below the rating for weapons is) who keep facing teams with 1900 or above and being unable to win due to weapons giving them that slight advantage. Rofl, that was a joke right?

Flawless
15-09-2007, 07:43 PM
You think its a joke being a rogue? .

Valoran
16-09-2007, 06:57 AM
Rofl, that was a joke right?
I fail to see why you're on the floor, let alone laughing.

Elayna
16-09-2007, 07:16 AM
I fail to see why you're on the floor, let alone laughing.
I am laughing at you pretending to know something about arena pvp, when your comment obviously shows you dont.

Chopper
16-09-2007, 07:48 AM
The comment about ladder system 1800-1900 matchups is valid. The comment about weaponry making a difference is valid.

Btw, sorry for the lol@armory, but unless Elayna is a very neglected alt, your credentials for commentary on arena pvp are somewhat less than impressive.

Valoran
16-09-2007, 07:49 AM
Pray tell, enlighten me. I'm obviously too ignorant to see the error of my ways. You've added much to the discussion, Elayna.

Elayna
16-09-2007, 08:55 AM
The comment about ladder system 1800-1900 matchups is valid. The comment about weaponry making a difference is valid.

Btw, sorry for the lol@armory, but unless Elayna is a very neglected alt, your credentials for commentary on arena pvp are somewhat less than impressive.

Your right, Elayna is a very neglected alt. My main used to Flogra. Orc shaman to those of you to lazy to check armory :p. The highest I ever got on the ladder was one win away from 1900 rating (2vs2). If you check my gear you will see that its not any good. But regardless of that, I have never ever played a match that made me say "okey, that was a very close match. If only I had 50+ more damage on my weapon, we would have won then!". When we won, it was because we played better than the other team. Or our combo had a big advantage over theirs(Not very often). Same when we lost, either they were much better than us. Or they had a huge advantage in combo. So, lets say I had the merciless mace, instead of the shittyblue one hand I have. Would that have made us win all the matches we lost? No. It might have gotten a tad closer, but not made us win. It would have made me a bit more useful overall. Maybe even made us win the matches we won abit faster. But not enough to make us win the ones we lost. When we lost it wasnt because I lacked 50+damage on my weapon. It was because we were outplayed, or met a combo that was shit for us. Or worst, a combination of both.

Thing is, slightly worse weapons will not make a good team loose to an okey team. The only thing I can think of where slightly worse weapons will have something to say, is in mirror matches, were the combo is the same and the skill of the players are the same. But how often do you see that?

Lets say the best arena team atmo in our battlegroup, suddenly changed from their season two weapons to their season 1 weapons. Do you think that would have made them fall all the way down to the people without season 2 weapons? Or off the top 10? I doubt it.

Valoran
16-09-2007, 09:24 AM
Yes, you're correct. Skill and team composition is of far more concern than gear. However, as you have acknowledged in your own post, there are advantages from being better geared than your opponent, making it harder to break the 1900 (or whatever) barrier, causing a bit of stagnation as people attempt to climb the ladder. Nowhere did I state it was gamebreakingly overpowered (I actually said that it was the biggest issue I saw with the change, yet didn't have a huge overall effect on the matter).

Edit: also, I noticed you were elemental. The main point of this is how much it gimps melee dps by being unable to get the largest upgrade to their dps while in arenas. 50 extra damage on your weapon might not be much to a caster, but upgrading from latro's to the s2 offhand for example is a huge upgrade to anyone it might concern. The offhand being quite a cheap item, a lot of people went for as one of their first items.

Mojo
16-09-2007, 09:26 AM
The comment about ladder system 1800-1900 matchups is valid. The comment about weaponry making a difference is valid.


Weaponry will obviously be a slight advantage for the 1900 team. Saying that a certain number ( not tons ) of teams will be stuck below 1900 because of that is probably true too. More likely though, they'll be stuck below that rating because they don't play well enough. 1900 is no stellar rating, and they'll make mistakes. So if you're really a 2k or 2k+ team, you will not be stuck below 1900 just because you meet teams with slightly better weapons then you.

Chopper
16-09-2007, 10:25 AM
I was thinking some more about the "stuck below 1900" thing since my previous post, and after reading Elayna's and Mojo's,

A <1900 team may meet >1900 teams at a higher rating with the S3 weapons, and in matches versus that higher rated team, there is a small chance that the weapons would be the deciding factor. I imagine this would also be more likely to happen in smaller sized melee teams where class combo and gear level, particularly weapons, is more significant.

However, even IF every >1900 team the <1900 team faced was proving invincible because of S3 weapons, wouldn't the <1900 team still be able to face equal/lower rated teams and still gain rating from those matches? The <1900 team would gain a lesser amount of points from those matches whilst also losing a lesser amount from the invincible (for the purpose of this example) >1900 teams, but wouldn't it still be sufficient to eventually surpass 1900?

Valoran
16-09-2007, 11:20 AM
Arena weapons are itemised in such a way that they are also awesome for PVE. Thus, dedicated PVE players in a lot of cases play and lose 10 games a week to get their PVE upgrades. The reason for adding this cap is so to avoid people just sucking up the losses and requiring that only the players well enough versed in arenas to be able to collect the loot. While you discuss a method of possibly addressing a concern with adding a 1900 rating requirement to weapons, IMO it doesn't really address the underlying problem.

Personally, though, I think that the cap creates needless imbalances to the arena scene and that the arenas would be better benefited if blizzard put their effort into creating ways for PVP gear to be better suited to just PVP rather than both player and NPC facets of the game.

An example of this would be to increase a PVP weapons damage output the higher your resilience was rather than artificially limiting the people who have access to arena pieces x, y and z by adding an additional qualification.

As is getting to be a habbit for me, I'll also link the EJ thread on this exact topic to avoid rehashing discussion that's already been beaten to death.

http://elitistjerks.com/f15/t15564-arena_weapons/

Stim
17-09-2007, 07:41 AM
However, even IF every >1900 team the <1900 team faced was proving invincible because of S3 weapons, wouldn't the <1900 team still be able to face equal/lower rated teams and still gain rating from those matches? The <1900 team would gain a lesser amount of points from those matches whilst also losing a lesser amount from the invincible (for the purpose of this example) >1900 teams, but wouldn't it still be sufficient to eventually surpass 1900?
This is correct until team with >1900 lost some of it's rating to equally geared teams and dropped <1900. They got the S3 weapons and all the gear <1900 teams have. So, if they were ok in >1900 they will still beat those who never made it past >1900 and get back above *magic* barrier. Yes the difference seems not gamebreaking but it's all connected. If you got better purplz and some skill you can do more than usually and get other purplz even faster pushing your abilities even further, that was the original plan. With that limitation it's just gets nastier. I hope I won't be smacked by s3 mace rogues too long until WotLK is out...

Margelatu
20-09-2007, 10:44 AM
Arena weapons are itemised in such a way that they are also awesome for PVE. Thus, dedicated PVE players in a lot of cases play and lose 10 games a week to get their PVE upgrades. The reason for adding this cap is so to avoid people just sucking up the losses and requiring that only the players well enough versed in arenas to be able to collect the loot. While you discuss a method of possibly addressing a concern with adding a 1900 rating requirement to weapons, IMO it doesn't really address the underlying problem.


Well , those teams of casuals PvErs who loose 10 matches / week are usefull to the sistem , as you can build rating with them.
Let's say you take them out of the game cause you put there a rating requirement they know they cannot achieve.
They will stop playing soon , of course .

And next season I'm curious to see how % of the remaining teams can climb up over 1900 fighting only proffesional good geared teams. ( they are the only ones who wil remain in the game , the casulas will be out already) .

Valoran
20-09-2007, 10:59 AM
The point isn't to take them out of the game, just to stop them from getting the best shiny things. If people really want t6, they have to work for it - blizzard want to extend this mentality to arena rewards.

Flawless
20-09-2007, 11:13 AM
And next season I'm curious to see how % of the remaining teams can climb up over 1900 fighting only proffesional good geared teams. 1,9k is the professional mark? K.

Margelatu
20-09-2007, 11:21 AM
The point isn't to take them out of the game, just to stop them from getting the best shiny things.

If you take out the candy they will be out. Cause and effect.

1.9 rating cannot be obtained with PvE ppl doing this as casuals , using their raiding specs.

Hearst
20-09-2007, 12:10 PM
He never said 1.9k is the professional mark but when only pros are left some will have to be below it (1900 rating). Geddit? But anyway this , to be honest, won't really make that big of a difference. There's others sources to get weapons like instances, Blacksmithing and even having the S2 Weap isn't THAT big an upgrade.

Gwynin
20-09-2007, 02:39 PM
I'll just force casey and trashy to let me into their superior team for a week and then use my points on those weapons :P

Warlee
20-09-2007, 02:46 PM
I bet u will be requied to have 20% of games played there.

Gwynin
20-09-2007, 02:49 PM
there are no plans for other restriction that the rating one, so I could join a high rated team for a week play the 30% thingy or whatever is needed and then pay my weapons if I have points enough.

So unless they gonna add some other restrictions there is no problem with this, apart from finding a team on SS that actually has a high rating :P

Flawless
22-09-2007, 08:54 AM
they said they're implementing something to stop what you're talking about.

miganto
22-09-2007, 11:22 PM
It'll have a 'you must have xxxx rating to use this weapon' thing imo, the same as 'you must be a master axe-smith to use this weapon' atm.

Gwynin
23-09-2007, 02:44 AM
No No and No....

They have again and again and again clearly stated that the requirement will only be for purchase just like the old honor system, thats what has been said and written down everything else you come up with is purely fiction so stop wasting breath on it :)

Alverion
23-09-2007, 02:59 AM
This is Blizzard we're talking about. There is not set in stone until the day it hits live and even then, you can never be too sure : b

Thrasymakhos
23-09-2007, 08:33 AM
I'll just force casey and trashy to let me into their superior team for a week and then use my points on those weapons :P

Sorry to break the bubble hun, but me and superior team don't match. Let alone if it's me AND Casey. ;)

Warlee
23-09-2007, 11:49 AM
No No and No....

They have again and again and again clearly stated that the requirement will only be for purchase just like the old honor system, thats what has been said and written down everything else you come up with is purely fiction so stop wasting breath on it :)


Not rly, they said they are aware of people joining high rated teams to get only weapons and they said they are trying to find out way so u can avoid this . ( WTS 1900 RATING ACCES TO BUY WEAPON 100G PLZ)

Gwynin
23-09-2007, 02:26 PM
Thats true but they have never stated anything like the things you come up with, thats pure rumor mill guessing. Only thing that seems to be "set in stone" for now is that you will need a certain rating to buy the gear, not rating requirement in order to use em.


Sorry to break the bubble hun, but me and superior team don't match. Let alone if it's me AND Casey. ;)

Well we can drop Casey tbh :P

Warlee
23-09-2007, 03:34 PM
Got this

Quote from Blizzard staff
S3 Weapons Rating Requirements
You will only need a specific rating to purchase the items, it won't be required for their use. If you hit 1900 (for instance, this isn't a final number by any means) you'll be able to purchase and use the items, and if you dip below that you won't be able to buy them, but you'll be able to continue using those you've already purchased.

We're also well aware that this could potentially encourage players to join higher rated teams for a chance to obtain the items, and at later time we'll be discussing the solution coming that will prohibit it.

Gwynin
23-09-2007, 05:35 PM
So Im right and you're posting rumors/wishes, thank you.

Flawless
24-09-2007, 03:17 PM
No a wish is player housing. Guild Banks. They know that this is a problem and are looking for a solution.

Gwynin
24-09-2007, 03:36 PM
I was more referring to the statements made by ppl regarding that "we're looking into a solution for the issue with ppl switching teams" statement by blizzard.

Afterall just becos Blizzard has stated that they are looking into the issue, it isnt a guarantee for the solution being "'you must have xxxx rating to use this weapon" or any other idea ppl been posting here. Its just their guesses/whishes/hopes/bullshit/etc.

The only certain thing so far is that there will be a rating requirement for buying the weapons, whatever that rating is remains to be seen.

Flawless
24-09-2007, 03:43 PM
They said they're looking at an solution :P

Even Kaplan has acknowledge this as a problem and they are looking for a fix.

Gwynin
24-09-2007, 03:47 PM
Yes they are looking for a solution but ppl like Warlee have posted specific solutions (eg rating requirement for usage), and all those posts are just their own wishes/dreams/wanks/bullshit/idea/etc and have nothing to do with the actual solution that blizzard will apply at some time :)

Thats the point, not if blizzard are looking into it or not :)

Stim
25-09-2007, 07:00 AM
Blizzard is still looking into shaman PvP issues...

Sloth
25-09-2007, 06:09 PM
Blizzard is still looking into shaman PvP issues...

what issues?

Bleetman
25-09-2007, 07:44 PM
Occasionally, one dies,

Senex
26-09-2007, 02:54 PM
I fail to see the fundamental difference between paying Uber Team 500g so that they will invite me and let me purchase the S3 weapon, and paying Uber Guild 500g so that they will invite me to an <insert farm boss name here> kill and let me loot an item of my choice.

vattghern
26-09-2007, 03:16 PM
Occasionally, one dies,

Oh no ;(