Curse

lutz · Jun 20, 2009, 06:48 PM // 18:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by ]HM[ Sabre Wolf

Like noted here several times between Echo and Still... it would be a waste of time to build out new henchmen and re-update them every skill balance... Reason being, probably no one will really use them except for maybe like a Rupt-Bot.

As for the suggestion for removal of AI in GvG and HA... I frankly wouldn't mind that. Like I said before, PvP means PLAYER vs PLAYER... not a PLAYER and some AI Bots capable of interrupting and such that are not humanly possible vs PLAYER.

If you want to play in a Guild v Guild... then you should have a full team of players. Ergo the mAT rules of having all members of the team being from the same Guild. Heroes and Henchmen, not part of a guild last I checked. And if you want to use heroes, HB is the place to go... if you don’t have enough for an 8v8 team... guest out of the guild, recruit OR TA. I am just playing advocate and making counter points that there are PvP arenas already set up to fill those needs/roles. I don’t understand why there needs to be an excuse, or exceptions, to fill spots just to create an imbalance of play (the addition of AI verse Human). If you want to truly balance PvP as a whole, eliminating the AI and making it true Player vs Player is a nice direction to go in.

The point of Heroes is that if one player errors out 10 seconds before the round starts, you don't need to forfeit - you'll just be loading in to a likely loss (UNLESS IT'S AGAINST RANGER SPIKE AND YOU BRING KOSS).

]HM[ Sabre Wolf · Jun 20, 2009, 07:29 PM // 19:29

Granted, an uncontrollable Henchie is better then a DC (no player at all). I have run into that myself, especially lately with all the lag issues on ANET/Internet currently. But its still taking away from a true PvP environment.

Still Number One · Jun 20, 2009, 07:35 PM // 19:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by ]HM[ Sabre Wolf

Granted, an uncontrollable Henchie is better then a DC (no player at all). I have run into that myself, especially lately with all the lag issues on ANET/Internet currently. But its still taking away from a true PvP environment.

Having a henchmen for emergency situations isn't really taking away from a true pvp environment anymore than the Guild Lord, Knights, Bodyguard, and Archers are. In fact those NPCs take away the true Player vs Player more than a pretty useless henchmen would. Although I'm not advocating getting rid of them because then you'd just have HA, and I like GvG a lot more.

Heros took away from true PvP because there were actual situations where having a hero was beneficial and made the team better. As long as a henchmen can't abuse the ridiculous reaction time Heros have, they will never impact the game in that manner.

Snorph · Jun 20, 2009, 09:03 PM // 21:03

Considering in GvG/HA Heroes have never been that great in terms of real players it'll be nice to see the change. However with that said, alot of groups you can't HA with because of the requierments to get into a party. Ex, r9+ which myself and some people may or may not have. In terms of GvG, I can see getting rid of heroes, but HA? If most people cannot get into a group then I can see why people wouldn't want to use heroes.

2. Great idea.

DonCorleoneCS · Jun 20, 2009, 09:07 PM // 21:07

No true input by me for the first part. I can see the community being split pretty evenly on that.

as for part 2: Great. I'd love to do that

Ultima pyromancer · Jun 20, 2009, 09:20 PM // 21:20

1. Obviously there are arguments on both sides of this. The argument i would like to make against heroes is the way that BB sins or whatever frontline bring along a hero and click ROJ just as they kd an opponent. This would require a fair bit of team co-ordination to pull off with real players, so this in my eyes is an unfair advantage. The other point against heroes is of course their insane reactions or interupting or whatever.

2. Great idea, but people never come to agreements on builds in this game. One person wants a skill nerfed whilst others don't. Making sure the right people are chosen to do this is essential.

Good to see anet getting involved in the community after all this time, although i fear it has come a little too late.

AmbientMelody · Jun 20, 2009, 09:43 PM // 21:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regina Buenaobra

I just posted this on my wiki blog:

3 years too late but a good try ... so you have basically fired all pvp testers after Factions and now you seek players to to playtest your game for free and sign the NDA? Good try and would work, 3 years ago ...

FoxBat · Jun 20, 2009, 10:28 PM // 22:28

Another thing they could do would be to weaken the natives rule. There are alot of cases where people know people on Flists but they can't pull 4 people together out of one guild. Ladder doesn't mean anything anyways, so a single guild officer ought to be able to start a ladder match out of their guild. Everyone's already bought their champ points anyway (and guild slots are sold as easily as guests) so that point hardly matters.

Cab Tastic · Jun 20, 2009, 10:43 PM // 22:43

My guild plays GvG rarely, and if we are honest not to a very high standard. However, we do play occasionally. One thing I have noted at the level that we play at is how often we see hero's complementing the opposing team. Indeed we ourselves always have 4 hero's as we (as a guild) can only manage 4 actual players at a time.

My worry is that by freezing players like us out, you again reduce the amount of guilds participating, because I have to say I find the idea of fixed build henchies about as appealing as a hole in the head.

Still Number One · Jun 20, 2009, 10:50 PM // 22:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cab Tastic

My guild plays GvG rarely, and if we are honest not to a very high standard. However, we do play occasionally. One thing I have noted at the level that we play at is how often we see hero's complementing the opposing team. Indeed we ourselves always have 4 hero's as we (as a guild) can only manage 4 actual players at a time.

My worry is that by freezing players like us out, you again reduce the amount of guilds participating, because I have to say I find the idea of fixed build henchies about as appealing as a hole in the head.

What is preventing you from recruiting more players to play with? There are a ton of players looking to get into PvP but can't find a home. Why not give them one?

Yichi · Jun 20, 2009, 10:57 PM // 22:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avarre

They're opening applications to the general community. Now, remember Alpha?

Yes i remember the alpha testing in which you had to be invited and approved to get in. They have opened it to the general public now which I fell will be completely worse off than the original alpha testing was.

By opening your applications to the general public, you are essentially allowing everyone that can type a say in what goes on with the game wether it be good or bad. Something can be horribly wrong or a suggestion that completely kills or overpowers a skill, but as long as enough people vote for it, it can essentially make or break either side of the game, albeit PvE or PvP.

I believe ANET has created a double edged sword with this. While yes I agree that they need people to test the updates to try and find the flaws/bugs/improvements that could be made with each update, I am the most leary that you have an even mix of the population that plays the game giving the correct knowledge on the subject. There are a lot of players to be honest, on both sides of the game, that haven't got the slightest clue as to what is the most beneficial for either side of the game. You need a mmix of players that both know the game well, know what has been completely flawed in either side of the game, and have reasonable and decent ideas on how to go about improving this. Sadly I can without a doubt say that it will be worse off than the original alphas if they do not be very very selective in who and what they decide to let in and do in this round of testing, otherwise you are going to be worse off and lose even more customers to the game.

But this still brings me to my original question in the first place. The Alpha testing by select players was determined by the devs/cr/balance team to be no longer necessary shortly after the factions release. These people were not paid to do this, they were just select players in the game that were fortunate enough to have access to skills/updates before they went live. While good and all, there was a general consensus among ANET themselves that the alpha testing was primarily useless and thus ended the alpha testing. So why was this closed in the first place, if only to realize that maybe it would be good to have this back 3 years later. What was the original point in closing it? If the game was/currently/will be revolving aroudn player imput and testing of this kind of thing before the damage could be done, than wouldn't it have been more beneficial in the first place to have left your damage control in place to find the majority of the glaring problems before they are sent to the general population?

]HM[ Sabre Wolf · Jun 20, 2009, 11:08 PM // 23:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Still Number One

Having a henchmen for emergency situations isn't really taking away from a true pvp environment anymore than the Guild Lord, Knights, Bodyguard, and Archers are. In fact those NPCs take away the true Player vs Player more than a pretty useless henchmen would.

IMO, this is different... because those kinds of NPCs are not controlled at all by party members, and they are on every GvG Map. This makes them more of an obstacle on a GvG Map then an H/H would be. So that is a different case then the one I am making.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Still Number One

What is preventing you from recruiting more players to play with? There are a ton of players looking to get into PvP but can't find a home. Why not give them one?

This is my point... why just throw up your hands and say "screw it, just bring Vekk and Gwen and lets go"... GvG is the last changing feature to this game left. And there are tons of new Guilds out there looking for players to play GvG. I know my guild is 1-2 short of full core ourselves. But we go out and grab a guest from HA or look at my F-list and grab another from there. Maybe even try your allience or get into an allience that might be interested in GvG. Heck, last night, I grabbed a guest from HA, come to find out he was looking for a GvG team cause his GL was AFK for 4 months, played great for us, and is now a core member.

Go out and try recruiting... you might even run into people from top guilds that might guest and teach you a thing or two about GvG. You will never find out if you dont try. And removal of H/H from PvP would push this... those that say screw it... I guess you give up to easy, just lazy, or just dont care.

Gun Pierson · Jun 20, 2009, 11:58 PM // 23:58

If they're looking for a biased smite monk who wants to make the line more devastating in PvE so that even Grenth laughes his ass off, they can always pm me.

So no I'm not a candidate and Anet should carefully select the right people if this Test Krewe will have a real effect on skill balances. I support the idea though.

daraaksii · Jun 21, 2009, 03:25 AM // 03:25

Regina: Are you going Elyos or Asmodian?

OoO Rift OoO · Jun 21, 2009, 03:37 AM // 03:37

Just curious, how many people will be accepted for the team?

Si Mana · Jun 21, 2009, 03:59 AM // 03:59

Imo if anet intends removing hero use then perhaps they would consider reverting back to 6x6 again too.
As for test crew - /pickme

Ariena Najea · Jun 21, 2009, 05:25 AM // 05:25

Looks good to me. If it fails miserably, they can always cancel it.

I appreciate the effort that they are taking in order to become connected with the community, and their willingness to give this a try. My primary concern is that the process used to select members for the Krewe will not be taken seriously as it should, or not encompass a diverse cross-section of the player base. I have been playing for three years, but although I have more experience and knowledge about the game and its history than a relative newcomer, that does not inherently make my ideas, suggestions, or insights any more important than the newer player. I will certainly be applying though, and I hope that others that choose to apply with do so for the state of the game, rather than furthering their own agenda.

Best of luck to all applying!

Divine Ashes · Jun 21, 2009, 05:34 AM // 05:34

I think the testing Krewe is a great idea. This is something that top players have been asking for forever now...I'm glad to see it finally implemented. It's nice to know Anet is making an effort to connect more with the community. This will, of course, take some of the burden/blame for skill updates off of themselves (which is a good tactic, knowing the gw community).

I agree with Ariena that the Krewe should be selected very carefully because, as he stated, sometimes a new player's opinion is just as valid/valuable as a veteran's.

I'll most likely be applying.

-Sonata- · Jun 21, 2009, 06:44 AM // 06:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ariena Najea

Looks good to me. If it fails miserably, they can always cancel it.

I appreciate the effort that they are taking in order to become connected with the community, and their willingness to give this a try. My primary concern is that the process used to select members for the Krewe will not be taken seriously as it should, or not encompass a diverse cross-section of the player base. I have been playing for three years, but although I have more experience and knowledge about the game and its history than a relative newcomer, that does not inherently make my ideas, suggestions, or insights any more important than the newer player. I will certainly be applying though, and I hope that others that choose to apply with do so for the state of the game, rather than furthering their own agenda.

Best of luck to all applying!

Well spoken, Ariena.

I echo this word for word.

lilDeath · Jun 21, 2009, 09:27 AM // 09:27

Interesting forthcoming attractions.

I like both 1. and 2.
1. has been requested for yonks.
2. has become a necessity since it appears they a. do not have enough time / people to do it themselves and b. all the problems lately in having bugs slip through in the updates and new systems going live.

I would like to know more about 2. Only certain people from certain countries will probably be allowed again. I am more qualified than most to do this type of testing.

Anyway, will look out for it.

Thanks for the communication, Regina. Appreciate it.