PvP Arena Suggestion (Yes, the one you want)

I have a suggestion that I believe will make arena more fun for all players.

1v1 Arena

Pro:
---It's a fact that people like to be the best and nothing says 'best' like winning 1 vs 1 arena tournements.
---Some people don't have a ready team to compete all the time, due to various reason --- one of which is using weird profession combos --- Warrior/Monk will get group more often than let's say Mesmer/Warrior.
---It brings a different kind of combat to GW. Some people make pure support characters that can't hold a candle to a level 0 Gwen. With the 1 vs 1 arena, people who choose to create a good solo fighter... well, CAN. Not everyone likes to make a E/Mo just to be useful in a group.

Con:
-Can't think of any... Even if I can... Why would I post it?

I have heard this suggestion a lot in game and my take on it, is that it defeats the concept of Guild Wars. The key word is Guild. The idea around this game, I thought was to develop a game that relied on Guilds working together. There are plenty of games out there that people can do 1 v 1 duels.

I find 1 v 1 duels tend to go to the player with the best in game equipment and/or best connection. The guild I belonged to for 7 years in UO, ran some of the largest PvP tournies on the Lake Superior shard of UO. We ran over 75 of them in 7 years and the worst ones were the 1 v 1's. The duels with 2 or more members demonstrated the best, because it make cross healing a major part. Lots of people like to get the kill shot, but very few people like to be the pro cross healer even though teams that cross heal in PvP are the better teams by far.

Lastly, IMO most builds for 1v1 PvP would be a W/Mo and that gets boring to watch.

naw my necro ranger would kill all the w/mo that would go into the 1v1. just drain health and throw thier conditions back as them. kills warriors a lot now in pvp would crush in 1v1 duel

Doesn't matter if you don't like it, other will, and want to try it. What's the point of not letting them?

Oh, the 1 vs 1 argument again. Look up duels on search for a lot of opinions.

As for me, this is the argument I've put out a lot, and I'm puttin it out again, just copy/pasted from a previous thread about 1 vs 1:

As much as I do think 1 vs 1 duels would be fun, I personaly don't think they should be added in.

It should not be added becaouse of morons complaining about the balance for 1 vs 1. I know it's not meant for it, and you know that, but if they added it, then there would be thousands of morons complaining about 1 vs 1 inbalance, and the call for nerfs on characters and skills abound. WE know the game is designed for GvG, but there's an army of idiots who would jump on it like no tommorow and complain all day.

And, knowing these people, as soon as you would give them the response of "The game isn't meant for this" we'd get the response from them of "Well, if it wasn't meant for it, why'd they put it in?"

So you have this army of idiots screaming for nerfs and to rebalance the game for 1 vs 1 because, and everyone's seen this by partying with these people in missions, these people want to be the uber 1337 god of gaming. Every dumbass that want's to be the shining star in every party that gets the whole group killed will be screaming for 1 vs 1 balance.

And Anet has a good reputation to listening to their customer base. IMO, add 1 vs 1's, and that army of idiots will bring the rest of the game down with it.

I think it sounds like a good idea, its not something for everyone but i think that there would be enough people interested in it that it would make it really fun. And besides if people don't like the idea... well don't do it, go do something else and let the rest of us have our fun, it's not like it would take up much room in the game just one more arena that people can play in. I gurantee you there are alot of people in the game who are interested in how they could do against other players one on one.

I think your point of adding a 1 v 1 arena to the game is well taken. The "if you don't like it, you don't have to participate" approach is valid. My only problem is that people that focus on becoming good Duelist, generally (not always) make the worse team PvP members.

Having been part of a elite group PvP guild in the past and seeing other great groups. The best and funniest moments was a tight small group running circles around a ZERG while the small group cross heals and drops the unorganized team.

As was mention in a previous post, my experiences with 1 v 1 duels only adds to people bitching about balance. Everything I hve read along with my experience in GW is the designers were careful in deciding character builds. There seems to be a counter build to each build. Truely the best 1 v 1 duels are situations where all things are equal, but I have not seen a game yet achieve such a balance.

But hey, I say put an 1v1 arena, it really won't hurt mine or other players gaming experience.

Can you ban all the kitchen knives because some idiot stabbed someone with it? No. Neither can you object to the idea for something that will benefit many, simply because the possiblity of idiots. Why don't we ban the forum because the could be idiots ranting? Many will enjoy the addition of 1v1 arena, and it is NOT true that 1v1 arena winners are the ones with the best connection and/or eq. Especially in this game where eq are relatively easy to obtain. (And all PvP character start with near perfect item selection) Believe me, I use 56k connection, I know winning a 1v1 fight and connection has nothing to do with each other. Your arguments are flawed because 4v4 is far more chaotic and therefore hits your connection harder. It's far easier to play with only two character running around in your screen. People like being elite and others might not like the fact that some people are better than them... but hey, that's what "competitive" means, right?

ways that 1 vs. 1 is a good idea and can benefit the game... = XXXXXX etc. etc.
ways that 1 vs. 1 is a bad idea and can damage the game... = ... um... there are none really...

I'm all for it, i think it's great!

Because honest people who can see both sides of a situation, whether they are pro or con, are the ones who deserve the respect, and the ones who have the highest chance of persuading the audience. Also, there's no point in making a suggestion if you're only going to give lopsided information to back it up.

Also, the only thing I will even bother to think up against this suggestion (as it has been done to death already) is that Arenanet and even the box that the game came in supports cooperative play. A 1v1 arena in a game such as this would simply be an erroneous option to waste time (a costly one to implement at that) much like putting in a tic-tac-toe option with 24/7 moderators and servers. Fun for some? Yes. Hated by some? Yes. Waste of money? Definitely.

I see no cons, only pros. I would like to add more to it though. Maybe put spellcasters against spellcasters, rangers against rangers, and warriors against warriors. Also, let people bet on matches. The betting may be easily manipulated into a scam, but maybe ArenaNet oculd work something out. Maybe make the betting for an NPC arena, where NPCs fight each other... yeah, that sounds like a good way to solve the betting issue...

1v1 would be fun, but it would ruin group battles IMO. People would focus more on solo fights and not get involved in group tactics. This would make the game kind of boring.

Well, here's something that people seem to neglect or label as non applicable:

COST

Think of the cost it would take Arenanet to implement this feature? Especially given the circumstances.

A perfect example of what I said is to look at Lineage 2.

That's a game based for large scale pvp. Large scale castle seiges and 20 vs 20 or more clan fights. But they allow 1 vs 1 dueling, and in the beta for that, every forum was overwhelmed by people demanding balance for 1 vs 1 duels. The fact that certain classes were better againt some than others and that L2 was designed for large scale warfare was swept away, and then the nerf bat started swinging. Now, large scale pvp barely happens on most servers, and it's all about 1 on 1 fights.

You think the type of people who did that aren't here? You think they wouldn't raise the same concerns? It happens in all sorts of pvp games, and it would happen here. History proves that.

*edit*

And where did I say connection? I was talking about the community.

I think that comment about conenction was aimed at me. I said some games connection made a difference in 1 v 1 duels. I do agree with Jackel that 1v1 duels have hampered large scale PvP in other games.

1v1 would be a good thing. It would allow you to see how your profession stacks up against another profession and allow you to learn techniques to counter individual enemies.

Most people would asssume that the W/Mo class would win every match...well, I'd bet that that wouldn't be the case at all.

I mean, would you like to see how a Mo/Mesmer does versus a W/Mo? I sure would. With damage reversal and smiting along with energy gains from taking damage, combined with "petrify" (or whatever that skill is that stops people from making any physical attacks for x seconds).

I doubt there would be any ONE super build that would beat everything. Vitually every class has a counter.

I really look forward to 1v1 arenas. Maybe Ranger/Necromancers could earn themselves a good name for once.

Just found three more Pros today... Didn't happen to find any Cons... Sorry.

1. One of the other team's warrior said after we annilated them:
"My team sucked, I would have beaten anyone of you noobs."

Sure, sometimes you get bad teammates... but most times people use it as an excuse because they simply don't measure up. I am serious about this. A good player can cause the team to win no matter how bad the team is (to a certain degree). But, because there are players (like the above mentioned warrior) who believe they are such elite player, we should imp. the 1v1 arena system so he would know just how bad he would get fatality'd.

2. Many times have I heard, blah blah blah combo's "pwnage" just like how this thread said that w/mo will win all 1v1 games... I disagree, and we can argue all day because there is no way to prove it. 1v1 is the best way to settle arguements.

3.Role-play reasons. Lord Lancelot challanges Lord Lustalot to a duel because Lord Lustalot hit on Lady Hottie one time too many. If this is to be a RPG to any degree, a form of PvP like 1v1 must be allowed. You do not need 4 people just to PvP.

As for the money issue... They can add the 1v1 arena, so the game will be much better than it's competitions and therefore sell more copies with future updates... Win-and Winsomemore situation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a matter of fact, I would like to ADD more to my idea. Let's bring on the PvP area!!!

Duel is fine in its fairness... But face it, fights are not fair. Fairness do not win wars. People like to gang up, trap, ambush and what-have-you. PvP area is the way to go.

Imagine a elementalist hiding behind a small hill waiting for that wounded Necromancer. Two fireball and one immolation later, dead Necro.

Or, the said Necro grew smarter and he gathered an army of Bone Horror and traps the Elementalist on a bridge with his army "body-blocking" the exits. Revenge is sweet.

This, my friends, puts the "War" in "Guild War".

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I played in a online MUD with similar PK (player-killing) style. It was fun. So much so that every clan (guild) had a war-advisor of sort who is good at setting traps and ambushing enemies. Now THAT is PvP!!!

1 v 1 is idiocy, pure and simple as the result of this battle won't mean anything at all.
Mesmers will be most likely owned by fighters because very few mesmers are anti-melee.
Fights against rangers will be either very short or very long. Either the ranger is defeated in the beginning of the game or the whole duel will be a warrior chasing the ranger arround the arena.
Fights against monks will be so long that people will simply quit when facing one.
&c
In a nutshell: if you are a W/Mo, you have 9/10 chances of sucess in a duel.

Again, there is no reason not to have this. People want it and it wouldn't hurt the game in any way. If you think that it's stupid to have this then don't play it. But, I think that the majority of players would at least want to give it a shot to see if they really have that "all powerful" build. And I REALLY feel that the all powerful W/Mo would lose the majority of 1v1 battles if they just use weapon damage builds.

I feel that the random team arenas scattered through Tyria are "idiocy". Since you don't know who you're going to be teamed with winning often comes down to "luck of the draw".

With 1v1 you know what you're getting into. You'd know what you'd be fighting if you could challenge an opponent. Actually, I think that both an invite 1v1 and a random 1v1 match should be implemented.

Another advantage to 1v1 matches is that it would be fairly easy to start one. As opposed to doing the tournament where you have to post and post and post to finally find a team willing to pick you up (unless you're a healing monk of course) with 1v1 you just go to the area and pick an opponent. If someone thinks they'll beat you then you'll be snapped right up. And I tell's ya that virtually every build has a counter. This would really open things up and show people just how useful each of the class combinations is.

------

More on the industructable w/mo. Assuming the W/Mo's in question think they're super cool because of their massive weapon damage - they would probably be very surprised at how horribly massicered they'll be. Your standard W/Mo build can be easily countered with some nice Smiting prayers or Pacifism. Even a mesmer can slow a warrior down with Imagined Burden. A Warrior can't hurt what they can't catch. Ever hear of BLIND? A warrior could slash away and catch nothing but air.

But, none of this can really be proven unless we're given 1v1.

I haven't PvP'd very much because it's so freaking hard to form a team and the random arena's...well...are random.

Please give us this small extra thing to do in the world of guild wars. It'll please alot of people. For those who don't care about 1v1 then this should be a non issue as it wouldn't affect any other aspect of the game...other than alot of people would be playing it.


And one more thing, there should also be Level 20 arenas for not just 1v1, but also 2v2 and 3v3. Those 8v8 matches involve way too many people and require too much coordination to set up if you're not in a guild.

I like the 1 v 1 idea, and I'm sure the dev team will add it to Chapter 2 if not patch it into Chapter 1 of Guild Wars.

More recently(above topic), I'd like to wonder why everyone thinks W/Mo are so indestructible. I am seriously asking this question, because you think an E/Mo would be able to smite the hell out of a W/Mo. First of all, Elementalists get cold spells which can dramatically reduce their running speeds, and they even get a spell called Water Trident that knocks down moving targets. On top of that, they have Airborne Speed which lets them hit a warrior, knock him down, run away for distance, hit again, knock him down, run away etc. Also, warriors have a weakness to lightning attacks, which are by no means weak with decent lightning attributes. I've been able to suck out 120 health in one chain lightning hit on a warrior in PvP before, and that's just in one hit. Finally, with monk spells, the Elementalist part would be protected even more with protection prayers and healing spells if really needed(doubt that, with a spell like Aura of Restoration on, you wouldn't really need healing spells at all).

I'm sorry if it seems like n00b question, but I really haven't figured out why W/Mo ever got the nickname "indestructable."