Curse

ajc2123 · Jul 08, 2009, 05:17 PM // 17:17

Ok, after the longest time of denial, I finally realized that everyone who said FA was unbalanced, was right.

/facepalm

This isn't about how its unbalanced, there's already a thread on that, this is for a possible (yet more difficult) idea I have. It includes mission objective change, along with a map change. Prepare for a good amount of text.

Have both sides have a fort and name it, the forts of aspenwood. Small name change just to have it fit. I drew a crude sketch of what the map would look like. The Lux fort will look exactly the same, but I grew lazy....think symmetrically.

Before I get too much into the layout let me lay out the major goal of the arena. Be the first to collect 10 (number can vary) war plans from the enemy fort. Yes this is a infiltrate and escape mission. With no Pure Defend the fort, both sides have an active goal and aren't forced to play pure offensive or defensive roles. After 28 minutes, the team with the most plans wins. If equal, then the next team to get one wins.

War plans are bundle items, and when someone carrying one is killed or drops it, The bundle item stays where it is dropped (unlike amber in which it disappears after a short time). Until a member of a team that owns the battle plan picks it up of course, then it goes to where it was in their fort.

Optional part
While holding a battle plan you are affected by " Get this to the Master!" where snares cannot exceed 66%, and you are buffed with a 10% speed boost. However while under this affect you cannot block attacks due to recklessness. Either that or remove the affect all together. I think it would be fun.
End optional part

Now as for where the plans are located, they are random and you must find them. Sometimes they are carried by NPC's, sometimes they are laying around the fort, but they are ALWAYS in the fort. If an NPC is somehow dragged out of their fortress, if they had a plan, it will transfer to another NPC.

This part is optional.

The last Battle map that you can collect is collected from the enemies Master, located in the rear of their base. Once the master reaches a health of 5%, he drops the map and turns untargetable. If the battle plan is recovered he gains full health/energy and is cured of all status affects. The master is surrounded by 1 ritualist and one monk, and he himself is an elementalist/warrior with earth magic and defensive stances, and watch yourself.

End optional part

The NPCs in the map are balanced teams, spread out. Including one monk, a necro, elementalist, warrior, ranger, and assassin or ritualist. There are a total of five groups, and each group will respawn after a certain amount of time. These groups are marked by orange blocks. Apart from these groups there are solo npc's such as rangers at the fort's walls. These have a very very low chance of dropping a battle plan and do not respawn once killed.

The masters are located in the back marked by black squares.

Instead of two Doorways, there are now three. The middle Is Large enough for rangers or other ranged classes to be able to target almost anything in the area, but its open enough where AoE spells wouldn't be such a problem. The two outer doorways are so thin that they are subject to AoE spells and traps, but is almost impossible to hit anything with a bow/spear from above. However since there are 3 passages you must be wary of how you spread your team. 2-4-2 or all rush through center? There are no physical doorways to block passages.

There are two portals (marked by blue circles), both leading out of the fort and to the sides slightly (more exaggerated in the picture.) In the center there is an amber mine that is in a ditch, so you can only enter from the southwest or northeast, or shadowstepping. For every 8 amber you collect, you increase the chance to get a battle plan dropped. For every 4 that you get, one of 4 groups spawn near the gates that defend them. In this format the npcs do not move, so no worrying about them getting stuck in a path from an exploit or such. There is no capture the amber mine, anyone can use it.

Luxon center gate. Two siege turtles with 3 warriors

Luxon side gates. One siege turtle with 4 warriors

Kurzick center gate. Two Juggernaughts with 3 rangers that have make haste.

Kurzick side gate. One juggernaught with 4 rangers that have make haste.

The siege turtles keep siege attack, that cannot attack foes near it, and loose the enchantment affect and carrier defense (Since they do not move, no need to harm the physicals)

The juggas also loose carrier defense (Dont think they had it FA though anyways) and gain an PBAoE skill that matches siege turtles attack. The turtle has warriors to make up for its lack of Melee, and juggas have rangers to make up for their lack of range. Make haste is only cast on juggas and not humans.

That's my rough idea for a new, balanced FA....though Im not sure how balanced the jugga vs turtle will be... That may have to be adjusted.

Flame away or help make it better or discard it. Your choice.

Xx Confuto Xx · Jul 08, 2009, 05:44 PM // 17:44

First of all, i think that if this were to be changed, it might as well just be an entirely new CM. The first optional part, in my opinion, is a bad idea, but the second optional idea sounds very good. Now for balancing the gates, having two siege turtles at the same place who would most likely be firing on the same target (or Juggernauts with whatever skill you want to give to them) would be terribly overpowered and would likely kill half of the casters in one volley, even if they used +10 armor vs. earth shields. But if you could figure out a balanced NPC scheme, this sounds like it might be a good idea.

ajc2123 · Jul 08, 2009, 05:46 PM // 17:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xx Confuto Xx

First of all, i think that if this were to be changed, it might as well just be an entirely new CM. The first optional part, in my opinion, is a bad idea, but the second optional idea sounds very good. Now for balancing the gates, having two siege turtles at the same place who would most likely be firing on the same target (or Juggernauts with whatever skill you want to give to them) would be terribly overpowered and would likely kill half of the casters in one volley, even if they used +10 armor vs. earth shields. But if you could figure out a balanced NPC scheme, this sounds like it might be a good idea.

What if the damage from the siege attack was scaled down to a more reasonable amount. Such as a very slightly more powerful barrage?

Granted like I said, the enchant removal part is discarded so prot spirit may make an entrance?

TY for the insight.

Breakfast Mc Rit · Jul 08, 2009, 06:02 PM // 18:02

So you'd basically get a sort of relay race, an easter egg hunt and both sides are now running amber?

I do admit that an infiltrate format seems kind of fun, but not for a random team that has poor communication. And even if it was implemented for team play, you'd get the PvP idiots saying "this is not real PvP" and the PvPvE noobs abandoning the format because they can't get organized.

Shayne Hawke · Jul 08, 2009, 06:50 PM // 18:50

FA is a bad map/idea because the map is not symmetric with respect to both sides. When I say this, I mean that splitting the map with a line running halfway between the two sides and perpendicular to a line connecting the two sides, the terrain is different, NPCs are different, objects are different, goals are different, etc.

That said, it seems that you're suggesting we move from one asymmetric game to another. At the same time, you're asking for more map/goal adjustments that would require work to do, or wouldn't make the game any more symmetric between the two sides. Long story short, this idea doesn't really solve anything.

/notsigned

ajc2123 · Jul 08, 2009, 06:57 PM // 18:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shayne Hawke

FA is a bad map/idea because the map is not symmetric with respect to both sides. When I say this, I mean that splitting the map with a line running halfway between the two sides and perpendicular to a line connecting the two sides, the terrain is different, NPCs are different, objects are different, goals are different, etc.

That said, it seems that you're suggesting we move from one asymmetric game to another. At the same time, you're asking for more map/goal adjustments that would require work to do, or wouldn't make the game any more symmetric between the two sides. Long story short, this idea doesn't really solve anything.

/notsigned

What do you mean? The only thing thats different is the juggas and siege turtles with their partied rangers or warriors. Other than that, same goals, same forts, same everything else. Doesn't that make it balanced...

One of us is misunderstanding something. I'm confused lol.

This way, both forts are the same, have ALMOST identical npcs (Jugga and siege turtles need work), same goals, buffs, etc etc. Their not forced to plus a pure defensive or offensive build, and Melee is actually playable.

MagmaRed · Jul 08, 2009, 08:00 PM // 20:00

It won't happen. And I know I'm not supposed to say that, but it won't.

1) New map - it takes a LOT of work and a LOT of time to create a single map
2) New NPCs - either builds or AI is being changed based on your description, this takes considerable time to implement and test
3) New objectives - this takes a HUGE amount of time to code and test

If you expect to see this happen, I feel sorry for you, as GW is on its way out. If you just want to discuss things, then Riverside is the location for this.

I play Luxon for FA, and I find it impossible to win at times if the Kurzicks have at least 2 people who know how to stall the Turtles and/or heal their NPCs. However, if the Luxons have at least 2 people who know how to kill the NPCs and/or the players keeping them alive, it isn't too hard. I don't see any problems with the balance in the current version.

Show Some Skin · Jul 08, 2009, 08:03 PM // 20:03

I love this idea

It looks fun, maybe an idea for GW2 pvp?

ajc2123 · Jul 08, 2009, 08:13 PM // 20:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by MagmaRed

It won't happen. And I know I'm not supposed to say that, but it won't.

1) New map - it takes a LOT of work and a LOT of time to create a single map
2) New NPCs - either builds or AI is being changed based on your description, this takes considerable time to implement and test
3) New objectives - this takes a HUGE amount of time to code and test

If you expect to see this happen, I feel sorry for you, as GW is on its way out. If you just want to discuss things, then Riverside is the location for this.

I play Luxon for FA, and I find it impossible to win at times if the Kurzicks have at least 2 people who know how to stall the Turtles and/or heal their NPCs. However, if the Luxons have at least 2 people who know how to kill the NPCs and/or the players keeping them alive, it isn't too hard. I don't see any problems with the balance in the current version.

I'm not going to discuss why it isn't balanced because that's for an existing thread. I know it most likely wont happen, but it doesn't mean you can not suggest something seriously. I hope hope that FA will be fixed in one way or another.

Yes its a lot of work, but its a good project for their 'big' projects. Since we've seen a new island (zoo) and code (also zoo and daily quests/ thommis etc etc) Then I have hope yet.

ajc2123 · Jul 10, 2009, 06:05 PM // 18:05

I forgot to mention that If an NPC drops a plan, and plans that are throughout the fortress can not be picked up by allies UNTIL it has been picked up by the enemy. This makes sure that the person with the fastest ping cannot just target closest item and pick up in milliseconds making it impossible to score points.

Shadowspawn X · Jul 11, 2009, 09:26 PM // 21:26

/signed

but should be renamed as random gvg.

ajc2123 · Jul 12, 2009, 01:30 AM // 01:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shadowspawn X

/signed

but should be renamed as random gvg.

Funny, I always wanted a random gvg lol. Maybe that's how I got this idea and didn't know it...

Giga_Gaia · Jul 13, 2009, 04:06 AM // 04:06

It does sound like it would be a lot of fun, but yeah it would be too much work. Perhaps we may get something like this in GW2. But yeah it's a great idea, you obviously thought this out quite a bit. Nice to see a well thought out idea in trying to fix the arena instead of having people just come on here and whine about how imbalanced it is.

Hugh Manatee · Jul 13, 2009, 10:45 PM // 22:45

Here's how you fix aspenwood, let players build parties, then enter the mission. All of a sudden, no more leechers, no more asinine builds with level 12 pets on non-ranger primaries, everyone is coordinated working towards the same goal, the luxons are offensive, the kurzicks, faced with a coordinated offense will have to counter attack and run amber, a meta will develope and everyone will have fun and be happy.

Preemptive rebuttal: "but then the kurzicks will take 8 monks and be invincible". No they won't, not if said meta developes. First if kurzicks can coordinate, so can luxon, this means they can take stuff like shadow shroud, well of the profane, ect. If they can't prot it's just a matter of how hard can you spike. If they bring rit D, counter that, if they start competing for corpses it gets interesting. Also the kurz will have to bring at least some offense so they can run amber.

Leave RA in RA, aspenwood and JQ should be party based.

ajc2123 · Jul 13, 2009, 11:03 PM // 23:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh Manatee

Here's how you fix aspenwood, let players build parties, then enter the mission. All of a sudden, no more leechers, no more asinine builds with level 12 pets on non-ranger primaries, everyone is coordinated working towards the same goal, the luxons are offensive, the kurzicks, faced with a coordinated offense will have to counter attack and run amber, a meta will develope and everyone will have fun and be happy.

Preemptive rebuttal: "but then the kurzicks will take 8 monks and be invincible". No they won't, not if said meta developes. First if kurzicks can coordinate, so can luxon, this means they can take stuff like shadow shroud, well of the profane, ect. If they can't prot it's just a matter of how hard can you spike. If they bring rit D, counter that, if they start competing for corpses it gets interesting. Also the kurz will have to bring at least some offense so they can run amber.

Leave RA in RA, aspenwood and JQ should be party based.

No, Kurzicks will bring monks, AND rits, and have some sort of defensiive spirit /enchant / weapon spell massive super build. Maybeh some angelic bond paragons.

Prolly something like this.

2 Bonder monks
2 Defensive rits
2 Infuse health monks
2 paragons with angelic bond angelic protection, or 2 more rits with withdraw hexes or ether prism healers or whatever.

AND even if those builds are countered, It's still not balanced. Both sides need the same goals and a symmetrical map to 100% ensure balance. I'm not saying my format is the best, but it will work.

Shayne Hawke · Jul 14, 2009, 01:25 AM // 01:25

Yeah, I figured out where I was getting confused with your idea. What you're suggesting is a symmetrical map in respect to both sides. However, I recognize what doing this means with MagmaRed's post, and I've come to this conclusion:

The only solution to FA is to close the doors on it.

upier · Jul 14, 2009, 07:08 AM // 07:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by ajc2123

After 28 minutes, the team with the most plans wins. If equal, then the next team to get one wins.

This is the thing I have the biggest issue with.
No Aspy game should last half an hour. And then if you reduce the time - there are too many objectives to complete by a random team in that short amount of time.
I absolutely approve of ideas that strive to to fix Aspy - but I can not get behind this one.

Enon · Jul 14, 2009, 08:13 AM // 08:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by upier

No Aspy game should last half an hour.

A game can last as long as it needs to depending on the reward and whether the losing team gets something.

upier · Jul 14, 2009, 09:26 AM // 09:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enon

A game can last as long as it needs to depending on the reward and whether the losing team gets something.

Not EVERYTHING I say has a hidden sexual meaning.
Sometimes "Aspy" means just Aspy.

ajc2123 · Jul 14, 2009, 12:28 PM // 12:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by upier

This is the thing I have the biggest issue with.
No Aspy game should last half an hour. And then if you reduce the time - there are too many objectives to complete by a random team in that short amount of time.
I absolutely approve of ideas that strive to to fix Aspy - but I can not get behind this one.

Well then why don't you suggest a time limit / plan required instead of just saying no because of those?

Or make an idea yourself and suggest that.