Tiger
Legend
I can literally pay someone tonight to carry me to 2200+
Who is more skilled: arena players or bg players?
- Thread starter wicktick
- Start date
I can literally pay someone tonight to carry me to 2200+
Spiriel
Legend
OP
OP
wicktick
Legend
It's impossible for any player to analyze the individual movements of every player in a bg to decide on the best course of action. This means that "endless possibilities" do not actually enable a player to play more skillfully. As a consequence of the increased number of players, winning strategies and coordination become much simpler.
You're entitled to your opinion, you know, but you're absolutely wrong.
Bop
Remember the Treeline
One thing I've been thinking about for a while is that we often fail to accurately define "skill" when it comes to arenas.
I would make the case that there are two kinds of "skill" or "finesse" or what have you in arenas (and to a lesser extent in RBGs): Dynamic skill and Static Skill.
Dynamic skill: this is how well you perform in a scenario that features two roughly balanced but entirely different opponents. This is most similar to a card game (like Magic: The Gathering or Hearthstone), where there are 2 opposing decks and the assumption made is that they will be entirely different but balanced (assuming that both players are competitive and in a non-mirror deck matchup). The better player is the one that recognizes their opponents strengths and weaknesses and focuses on negating/exploiting them.
Static skill: this is how well you perform in scenarios that are almost purely mirrored. This is most similar to a board game like Chess. Both sides have access to nearly the exact same resources (but not necessarily; I.E., in chess one player has to go first) and the winner is the player who mini/maxes the best. As a whole, we generally consider games that require static skill to be relatively boring (Thus the decline in chess play in recent years), although they are almost inherently more likely to be balanced than games requiring Dynamic skill.
The general dislike of 2v2s in WoW arenas is because games are either Rock-Paper-Scissors (no one is happy,) or similar enough that they require Static Skill to win. While I agree that Rock-Paper-Scissors games should be avoided when possible, I disagree entirely with the sentiment that Static Skill in 2v2s is somehow not rewarding or difficult. In fact, in 2v2 matchups the better team is almost certain to win if the matchup is Static (and of course not Rock-Paper-Scissors).
There can be a bit of dynamic play in 2v2, since some matchups are similar without being mirrors (Disc/Ret vs Disc/WW comes to mind). However, even in mirror matchups the team that utilizes their abilities at the correct times and in the best combinations are going to experience a rewarding win in my opinion.
EDIT: One more thought: In Static 2v2s as well as in Chess, players generally appreciate the subtle gameplay far more once they themselves are experienced in those games. The barrier of interest is high in both of those cases, which is probably why those game modes are seeing a decline in popularity despite being balanced.
I would make the case that there are two kinds of "skill" or "finesse" or what have you in arenas (and to a lesser extent in RBGs): Dynamic skill and Static Skill.
Dynamic skill: this is how well you perform in a scenario that features two roughly balanced but entirely different opponents. This is most similar to a card game (like Magic: The Gathering or Hearthstone), where there are 2 opposing decks and the assumption made is that they will be entirely different but balanced (assuming that both players are competitive and in a non-mirror deck matchup). The better player is the one that recognizes their opponents strengths and weaknesses and focuses on negating/exploiting them.
Static skill: this is how well you perform in scenarios that are almost purely mirrored. This is most similar to a board game like Chess. Both sides have access to nearly the exact same resources (but not necessarily; I.E., in chess one player has to go first) and the winner is the player who mini/maxes the best. As a whole, we generally consider games that require static skill to be relatively boring (Thus the decline in chess play in recent years), although they are almost inherently more likely to be balanced than games requiring Dynamic skill.
The general dislike of 2v2s in WoW arenas is because games are either Rock-Paper-Scissors (no one is happy,) or similar enough that they require Static Skill to win. While I agree that Rock-Paper-Scissors games should be avoided when possible, I disagree entirely with the sentiment that Static Skill in 2v2s is somehow not rewarding or difficult. In fact, in 2v2 matchups the better team is almost certain to win if the matchup is Static (and of course not Rock-Paper-Scissors).
There can be a bit of dynamic play in 2v2, since some matchups are similar without being mirrors (Disc/Ret vs Disc/WW comes to mind). However, even in mirror matchups the team that utilizes their abilities at the correct times and in the best combinations are going to experience a rewarding win in my opinion.
EDIT: One more thought: In Static 2v2s as well as in Chess, players generally appreciate the subtle gameplay far more once they themselves are experienced in those games. The barrier of interest is high in both of those cases, which is probably why those game modes are seeing a decline in popularity despite being balanced.
Last edited by a moderator:
Fael
Believer
Most carries are them playing on your account. If you get 2 glad players to carry you to 2200, that is easy in that case. 2 glad players can surely help the third to 2200, where the glad players are 2.9k+. The gap between 2200 and the top is larger than people think. And in the same fashion arena carries are done, rbg carries are done in the same fashion.
Tiger
Legend
Getting glad is a lot more about who you know than how skilled you are. Obviously you have to be good but you aren't going to break 2700 if you don't have glad partners (who tend to team amongst themselves). I brought up the carrys to illustrate that you are only as good as the rest of your team. You can be extremely skilled and still have a shit mmr, conversely you can be mediocre and have a great mmr. Individual skill is diluted.
Neon
Gang shit
nope
Sicknature
Grandfathered
Arena players are better at taking out enemies and bg players are better at tactical teamplay on a larger map to complete bgs i think?
Bop
Remember the Treeline
I don't buy the OPs logic at all. He asserts that the only variable in arenas is comp, and that skill isn't a factor. He assumes that we will accept that statement at face value, but he provides no evidence to support that.
He also suggests that RBGs have a higher skill cap since there are more possible scenarios in an RBG. While this completely disregards the fact that RBG comps are often very linear whereas 3v3 Arenas in a good season sport dozens of different viable comps that must all be memorized to achieve a high rating, it also is fairly irrelevant to the discussion at hand as I understand it.
We're discussing which is more skillful, not which has a higher skill ceiling. As it has come to mean in this thread, skillfulness is how much skill it takes to perform that activity at a competitive level. This is very different from a skill ceiling, which measures the maximum amount of success as a function of skill.
Rather than talking about who has more skill between the best arena players and the best battlegrounds players, we are talking about whether an average arena player performs better in battlegrounds than the average battleground player (and vice versa). So as Nexxerxd points out in that Arenajunkies.com post, RBGs tend to have a much lower skill floor than 3v3 arenas - you need much less skill to succeed in RBGs than you do in arenas.
EDIT: also, we don't really have the sample size to determine whether or not Level 20 "RBGs" have a higher skill floor than Level 20 Arenas, since there is a massive amount of cross over between the two activities.
Last edited by a moderator:
Delayed
Legend
Well, nothing is easy for either. Arena requires a LOT more timing for spells and cc's and positioning is a lot more critical (depending on comp). Whereas competitive battlegrounds also require a lot of skill. You have to know jumps, role positioning, when to go to mid, Efc push, retreat, whether to sit in enemy FR with flag and wait for mid to clear, etc (I could go on and on). It is a really close match but to me I feel arena (3's) by a mile. I'm not saying you can't see the skill of players in competitive battlegrounds, but in arena you can see the better players a lot easier and it takes a bit more skill with set up CC (given comp) and target switches.
This is just my two sense.
This is just my two sense.
Spiriel
Legend
So much more skill involved in endgame when you have to press 5 buttons in a row for cc instead of 2...
Never rly got the concept of "more buttons = more skill". The BGs are the same, the arenas are the same, the toons dont turn into cars either.
You want skill? The may I suggest sculptor as a career option
?
Nodoka
Contributor
So much more skill involved in endgame when you have to press 5 buttons in a row for cc instead of 2...
Never rly got the concept of "more buttons = more skill". The BGs are the same, the arenas are the same, the toons dont turn into cars either.
You want skill? The may I suggest sculptor as a career option
Sculptor you say!? Well I might just have to try it out!
Spiriel
Legend
Attachments
Nodoka
Contributor
dayum thats hot