Curse

d3kst3r · Mar 27, 2006, 09:14 AM // 09:14

There's Random Arenas, Team Arenas, Heroes Ascent, Guild Battles and now we have Alliance Battles. So which one is the most fun?

My vote is for Alliance Battles. 12 v 12 is by far the best for me.

Clusmas · Mar 27, 2006, 09:42 AM // 09:42

g v g.

Sekkira · Mar 27, 2006, 09:47 AM // 09:47

I can see Alliance battles to be just as tactically based as GvG.

VGJustice · Mar 27, 2006, 09:50 AM // 09:50

I vote Snowball.

The Unknown Enemy · Mar 27, 2006, 10:01 AM // 10:01

Snowball FTW!! That was an awesome PvP form. Otheer than that, I like the alliance battles. It was fun having 12 people in a party, and trying to cap the towers.

wolfe2dale · Mar 27, 2006, 10:06 AM // 10:06

To be honest the tactics for 12 v 12 are really simple, so you either get an easy win or a complete stalemate that relies on luck to get the high score first.

I hope they will be adding a dozen or so more maps & making which one you get completely random. That would make it much more challenging & confirm it's position as the 'most fun' pvp type.

LightningHell · Mar 27, 2006, 10:07 AM // 10:07

My vote goes to GvG.

Gonzo · Mar 27, 2006, 10:13 AM // 10:13

From what i've played: 12v12.

Haven't played: gvg or hoh.

Formina · Mar 27, 2006, 10:14 AM // 10:14

Alliance Battles definately. Quick and easy to get into unlike our current 8v8 matches, and incredibly fun and addictive. ^^

d3kst3r · Mar 27, 2006, 10:25 AM // 10:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolfe2dale

To be honest the tactics for 12 v 12 are really simple, so you either get an easy win or a complete stalemate that relies on luck to get the high score first.

I hope they will be adding a dozen or so more maps & making which one you get completely random. That would make it much more challenging & confirm it's position as the 'most fun' pvp type.

It's actually not as random and chaotic as you would believe once you begin to feel the flow of the battles. It's all about allocating the right amount of people to the right areas and attacking weakspots as well as formations namely 3-6-3 and 4-4-4. And allow these formation groups to stick together and take shrines/hold positions.
Alliance battles lend greater tactical depth as you can actually start applying military tactics to them.

Omnidragon42 · Mar 27, 2006, 10:25 AM // 10:25

HoH (non altar and relic maps) are up there, but I love 12v12. We brought in a 4 man spike team, dropping people left and right while capping the map points (Verata's Aura > Minion Masters)

Studio Ghibli · Mar 27, 2006, 10:55 AM // 10:55

While I enjoyed the 8v8s, I really thought the 12v12 shined. I'm hoping Anet thought to include a greater map variety, too, to take advantage of the Domination-style PVP--and also hope they update new maps prior to the next expansion.

Doubtful on that, though.

wolfe2dale · Mar 27, 2006, 11:12 AM // 11:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by d3kst3r

It's actually not as random and chaotic as you would believe once you begin to feel the flow of the battles. It's all about allocating the right amount of people to the right areas and attacking weakspots as well as formations namely 3-6-3 and 4-4-4. And allow these formation groups to stick together and take shrines/hold positions.
Alliance battles lend greater tactical depth as you can actually start applying military tactics to them.

Um, I didn't say that, I alluded to the point that 12 v 12 battles are quite simple if we only get 1 map & that we would need at least a dozen,randomly generated to keep this fresh.

As to military tactics, your quite right that they can be applied, but after a few battles you begin to realise that certain tactics are sure-fire winners that can only be stopped if your opponent uses the correct counter.

It turns into a rather limited version of chess that is based on your players individual & team tactics.

For instance I found that a 4 man 'raider' team specifically setup to capture the points can usually take the game very quickly whilst the remaining 8 commit to a full on frontal assault.

I spent a great many battles over the weekend just waiting outside the enemy base with all control points captured. Hammering anyone unwise enough to try to make a run for it.

Best score we attained was 500 - 16, I don't think it's actually possible to get a perfect score due to the amount of time it takes to capture all points, even uncontested.

JR · Mar 27, 2006, 11:29 AM // 11:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sekkira

I can see Alliance battles to be just as tactically based as GvG.

Not for as long as you enter with two other random groups.

GvG.

Leonof · Mar 27, 2006, 11:49 AM // 11:49

GVG

when we win it feels really good

when we lose we want to win even more

Siliconwafer · Mar 27, 2006, 12:22 PM // 12:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by d3kst3r

It's actually not as random and chaotic as you would believe once you begin to feel the flow of the battles. It's all about allocating the right amount of people to the right areas and attacking weakspots as well as formations namely 3-6-3 and 4-4-4. And allow these formation groups to stick together and take shrines/hold positions.
Alliance battles lend greater tactical depth as you can actually start applying military tactics to them.

As JR- said, until you can organise a group of 12, (and I don't mean clicking the "Enter Mission" button at the same time) Alliance Battles are not going to be as tactical as they could be. 12 people on a vent with strategy could be loads of fun, but with the random team element it can really spoil whatever tactics you have planned.

Until then, GvG.

Vanquisher · Mar 27, 2006, 12:24 PM // 12:24

GvG. My problem with Alliance Battles, ever since I found out about them, is that with the lack of coordination between groups, you can quite simply have the match made or broken by 2/3 players.

For a lack of a better example, EvIL. Throughout the weekend, there were several people who in groups of 4 who manipulated when they got in. Char, Te, EvIL, and Rift tended to take part in these groups a lot, picking up a random in each group and planning to go in together. Some of these Guilds were clearly more coordinated than the other people, and quite frankly, whenever they were on Luxon they won, and whenever they were on Kurzick they won. Hell, we even switched winning with Kurzick all the time to Luxon, to change it back again.

Thus I have to say, GvG is a lot more fun, as it doesn't just take a couple of players to stop other people having as much fun (unless you count losing 500-34 fun) in a completely random atmosphere.

fiery · Mar 27, 2006, 03:01 PM // 15:01

GVG, HOH, 12 vs 12 when we spiked the click mission with alll guildies

.

Sagius Truthbarron · Mar 27, 2006, 03:10 PM // 15:10

Alliance Battle. No waiting for 2 hours for a group that will disband in 5 matches. No rank check! The first time I stepped into the Alliance battle outpost I saw a few groups advertising for Rank 6+ players. I was like "...," but then when I pressed the Enter Mission button I was like "Yay!"

I do think its pretty tactical in a random sense and has nothing to do with "luck". Alot of it depends on the players you have on your team. Do you have PvE W/mo that are going to drop out if they die? Do you have players with good builds? Do you have a good leader? Does the enemy have these things?

Quote:

when we spiked the click mission with alll guildies

Yeah, that's a good idea.

damocles · Mar 27, 2006, 03:15 PM // 15:15

GvG ofcourse