Curse

Jin_Krathmor · May 19, 2005, 01:46 PM // 13:46

It seems that the majority of people who pvp in the competitive arenas all seem to dislike the fire island chain "deathmatch" arena (the one where you battle for the most number of kills). I know I have a strong distaste for the arena. I love the idea for the game type, but the setup and map is just a bit questionable.

My thoughts:

The arena is too large
- You want teams to be gung-ho (to an extent) and run out and fight, instead each team is waiting for the other to cross over to their side. Which coincides with the following...

Sudden death makes for easy wins
- I've got my team to do it when we were out matched (no monks vs. 2 monks for example) and I've had teams do it to me. You wait for time to expire and enter sudden death. Charge across and gang-bang their softest player. Easy win. Now seriously, how much fun is that? You stand around for 4 minutes and taunt the other team and then in a ten second flurry of madness kill their weakest player. Oh a great idea, but no fun at all.

Pets omg ****ing pets
- Yes, pets are a joke in pvp, but not in the hands of a skilled beast-master. They can really tear you up, get you caught up, annoy you, etc. The point is they -KILL- and they aid in killing. This is one part I'm not too certain on. If your pet kills someone, do you still get the point just like someone dying in the fire? And if so, why don't you get a point when you kill the pet? Seems like there is some weird sense of balancing going on there.

A "deathmatch" scenario like this gametype would be better played in an arena the size of the ascalon arena. No where to run or hide, with minimal environmental advantages. Small and cramped keeps the action going. Teams just sit and wait for the others to come to their side because it takes so long to get back to help your team if you happen to die. I think the current design of the map would be excellent for a capture the flag type game, but as is its like playing a game of slayer in halo on the blood gulch capture the flag map. If just doesn't sit well with me. If anything, could someone enlighten me on the scoring procedure involving pets.

Jin_Krathmor · May 19, 2005, 11:02 PM // 23:02

....?

Vangor · May 19, 2005, 11:16 PM // 23:16

Personally I've been intrigued to the scoring of a pet as well, it should realistically give a half point and the ranger the other half point, no matter the amount of points spent in beast mastery, since I've seen rangers who use their pets quite liberally and will prep before it dies then get it back up to run into battle again as quite an annoyance, since few will target it as it offers nothing.

As for the Ring of Fire arena, it was originally designed as a pseudo-ctf match, complete with ghostly hero and relics on a 2 minute wave respawn, and granted it made a much better relic capture match. I really wish it would go back to it, as well as having that great fort koga style siege map, and numerous ones similar to it, these 2 minute matches where one team just sort of rolls into an advantage is getting annoying. That siege could actually make Necromancers a wanted primary in PvP matches, as could adding a few monsters to the Ring of Fire, such as smaller imps/titans and ghostly soldiers to help defend the relic and hero.

However, I've never seen a sudden death.

Dagbiker · May 20, 2005, 04:01 AM // 04:01

i have a ranger / warror for my main char, now i dont pvp very often ( twice a week maby ) but every other time i can tell you that, in my mind set, as a ranger, your pet is your greatest allie, your pet makes a ranger diffrent from a warror, if sans everything else if that makes sence, but perhaps if they where to say, when the ranger dies, the pet dies.