Curse

aron searle · Aug 18, 2005, 01:46 PM // 13:46

Quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by aron searle
Ok so a good healing monk is hard to take down (not impossible), so this would be a great way to practice just that.

Quote:

Please give a build that has no counter build.
It doesn't exist.

How will you kill him?
Knockdown? Oh, no. He got balanced stance.
Break his stance with the warrior attack I always forget the name
But he snares you, so you can't come close enough.

Try to design 2 1vs1 builds and then try to design 2 counters. You will see the counter build will simple own the original build. No skill needed to do that.

Short example:
a hammer warrior will be very tough to defeat, but if you bring snares and/or blind he is harmless. Ward against Foes/Melee can't be avoided. So what can this warrior do? This 2 wards can be up all the time.

You could bring an Me or ranger to shutdown this E/Mo, but this shutdown Me would have no chance against the warrior.

ok a late response on this one

There is more to the quote but i get the point, its about balance which 1v1 would not quite have. but.....

You will notice in my text the word "practice". When i started this game i had no idea what skills countered what, so knockdown, balanced stance no clue. I also have only played a w/m & m/r so far so some of the other classes are not well know to me.

IMO this could be an pvp option for fighting friends so you can practice using certian builds against each other, and just trying out x skill.

Oh and also for..............

wait for it

FUN

Just remember some people will like this and will find it fun, otherwise this would not be 3 pages long :P

neoteo · Aug 19, 2005, 04:59 AM // 04:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mithie

Plus, the OP suggests having a minimum gold bet, which is a totally horrendeous idea.

thats old news , if you read all posts ... i agree on no minimum bet also.

Schorny · Aug 19, 2005, 08:26 AM // 08:26

If you want to test a build, play random arena.

You can't test a build in 1v1.

As I said already: all it would be good for is testing how much damage which combination can do.

A practice arena, for example against the AI would be a totally different suggestion. In this arena you could test things out, for example something like the PvE round in tombs or so. That is what will give you the opportunity to test a build (the build of one char doesn't matter on it's own, you don't counter one guy but you counter the whole team) and see what damages it deals, what weaknesses, etc.

1v1 would mean nothing for real PvP, so the "to test builds" argument is useless.

You guys brought up 'another' argument: "it would be fun"
I explained why it wouldn't be fun (because it won't be balanced).

And if you only play against your friend with a fixed build - how long would it be fun?
10 matches? 20? maybe 30 but that would be the end.

If you are up for a practice area where you can test your builds against the AI I'm all up for it. I don't really see a _need_ for it, but it could help great on testing things out.

aron searle · Aug 19, 2005, 08:40 AM // 08:40

Quote:

If you are up for a practice area where you can test your builds against the AI I'm all up for it. I don't really see a _need_ for it, but it could help great on testing things out.

YES, for testing things out. only i dont WANT to play against the AI i want to play with a friend who can point things out to me and give me advice.

Quote:

1v1 would mean nothing for real PvP, so the "to test builds" argument is useless.

"real" pvp to me suggests almost hardcore, i play pvp for fun.

Calimar · Aug 19, 2005, 08:46 AM // 08:46

Now. I agree with the Idea of a pvp battle where you can select your opponent. Of course, this means no fame, faction, xp, or anything - too easy to exploit otherwise.
This would make it great for testing. I'd do a separate 1vs1 "gladiatory" arena, where you go, pick an opponent, if he agrees you fight. I'd do something like a trade screen where you can put bets, if you want. If the transaction is satisfactory, you fight. If not, nothing's done.
(actually it would be cool to be able to bet on matches too, but that's a bit too prone to exploit)

To sum up counter arguments, they are:
*) it is not balanced

-- it's to be demonstrated. There's a counter for everything. Some classes would be stronger (eles and warriors), others would be weaker (necros and mesmers). You know what you're getting yourself into - not like the random opponent arenas where you have to fight whatever comes.

*) endless fights

-- Put a time limit, and when it's reached, the one who was the highest PERCENTAGE of health wins. Solved your defy pain problem. 5 minutes seem like a good time for a 1vs1. Draws? What is the problem with draws anyway? You don't get fame or otherwise.

*) some classes can't do it

-- wrong. Some classes might be less suited. But after all it's just for fun so where's the problem?

*) many skills are useless

-- True. I suppose you use all 180 skills for your character?

*) has nothing to do with player skill

-- Might or might not be true. If I, ele/me, encounter another ele/me about my level, it's definitely gonna be skill. If I, ele/me, encounter a monk... well good luck. First 2 skills you use will cost you 40 energy, and only one will work. After that.... I still have 82 energy points and 6 skills. If I meet a ranger... I'm probably down in no time. MAYBE.

Pro Arguments:
*) I want it

-- right.

*) it would be cool

-- right.

*) you don't have to do it if you don't like it

-- right.

I add:
*) could be used for testing purposes
*) would make a part of the populace happy
*) would increase pvp with pve characters
*) will not harm or influence ANY other game mechanics.

Oh and about the "droknar's set" and the rest of the "no player skill" BS: if you want to be an idiot, or cheap, go to ascalon's arena or yak's bend arena. There's lots like you there, I heard. Not like I'll feel humiliated by a guy in droknar's armor beating on my lev 5 mesmer...

*) can you prove me wrong on that??

I probably could, but I don't need to - I just need to prove your argument has nothing to do with the issue. Ok it's unbalanced. So what? Is anyone getting undue advantages? nope. Is anyone getting anything in another area of the game? nope. You don't like it, don't play it. Not like you're missing out the Godly Powers just because you don't do 1vs1. The "balance at all costs" system must be tweaked - you either balance groups or balance single characters. Can't do both. Sorry. Since groups gain favour and so on, and chars don't, balance groups. THAT simple.

> you simple don't understand that it takes nearly no skill for a monk to hold off a
> sword warrior. It really takes no skill for a ranger to hold off an ele.

You'd be surprised. There's still secondary class, not to mention that a difference in power can be made up with a difference in skill. I can be one level less and kill an unskilled one, whereas I can be underpowered as a class and still have the upper hand. Sure, at the same skill level, I'll be walked on. That's life.

IMNERHO.

Schorny · Aug 19, 2005, 09:58 AM // 09:58

real PvP is team arena, tombs, gvg - everything coordinated.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calimar

*) it is not balanced

-- it's to be demonstrated. There's a counter for everything. Some classes would be stronger (eles and warriors), others would be weaker (necros and mesmers). You know what you're getting yourself into - not like the random opponent arenas where you have to fight whatever comes.

So a warrior or ele will never fight an ranger. A monk will never fight an mesmer...

There is no way a monk can win against a mesmer designed to shutdown a monk. That is the rock-paper-scissor way. No way rock can beat paper.

Quote:

*) endless fights

-- Put a time limit, and when it's reached, the one who was the highest PERCENTAGE of health wins. Solved your defy pain problem. 5 minutes seem like a good time for a 1vs1. Draws? What is the problem with draws anyway? You don't get fame or otherwise.

A monk (primary or secondary) will be needed for win, because a ranger only has health regen, which can't jump to 100% immediatly.

and it comes down to timing, because I'll shoot a lightning orb just at the end and hope it hits right before the time is out...

maybe it should be ratet to health-loss. But that wouldn't be fair, cause degen would win all the time (you can negate dot, but you can't protect effectivly against it).

Quote:

*) some classes can't do it

-- wrong. Some classes might be less suited. But after all it's just for fun so where's the problem?

Ele and Mesmer - they don't have good self heals. They have a big disadvantage. Everyone will have a monk primary or secondary for the heals.

Therefore the variation will be limited and effectivly only allow PvP chars to play 1v1 - because you need to completly screw your PvE build for participating in 1v1

Quote:

*) many skills are useless

-- True. I suppose you use all 180 skills for your character?

No, but all target other ally, all corpse manipulation, all team buffs are useless, all area spells. That is hell a lot of spells.

enchantments would be overpowered because there will no good way to strip them. you need N or Me or R for stripping them. And even then the stripping isn't that great.

Quote:

*) has nothing to do with player skill

-- Might or might not be true. If I, ele/me, encounter another ele/me about my level, it's definitely gonna be skill. If I, ele/me, encounter a monk... well good luck. First 2 skills you use will cost you 40 energy, and only one will work. After that.... I still have 82 energy points and 6 skills. If I meet a ranger... I'm probably down in no time. MAYBE.

E/Me against E/Me gets down on who casts backfire first.
You outlined the rest quite good. the monk will stand no chance against you - even if he is the best monk in the world and you are an average E/Me. He will loose.

And that is what I call: "nothing to do with player skill".

Quote:

*) could be used for testing purposes

A real sparing/traing arena would be much better - because it would be actual useful.

Testing in 1v1 doesn't mean anything. you can't test Tombs/GvG/Team Arena builds there. You can't test special strategies, because you are going to lose if you did. Every good build relies on a team.

Quote:

*) would make a part of the populace happy

My doubt is: for how long. as I pointed out, it is not balanced, therefore not challenging, therefore only used to play against friends. And how long would this be fun?

Quote:

*) would increase pvp with pve characters

I don't understand that.

Quote:

*) will not harm or influence ANY other game mechanics.

That is no reason for including it.

Quote:

Oh and about the "droknar's set" and the rest of the "no player skill" BS: if you want to be an idiot, or cheap, go to ascalon's arena or yak's bend arena. There's lots like you there, I heard. Not like I'll feel humiliated by a guy in droknar's armor beating on my lev 5 mesmer...

If you are still talking to me, I ask you to apologize. If you are not talking to me - please make it clear to whom you are talking.

Quote:

*) can you prove me wrong on that??

I probably could, but I don't need to - I just need to prove your argument has nothing to do with the issue.

And your arguments "i want it", "you don't need to if you don't like", "it doesn't impact the game" are valid reasons?

Please think about it again. And think about my arguments first. I lined out that it won't be fun for long.

Quote:

Ok it's unbalanced. So what? Is anyone getting undue advantages? nope. Is anyone getting anything in another area of the game? nope. You don't like it, don't play it. Not like you're missing out the Godly Powers just because you don't do 1vs1. The "balance at all costs" system must be tweaked - you either balance groups or balance single characters. Can't do both. Sorry. Since groups gain favour and so on, and chars don't, balance groups. THAT simple.

So you like to play unbalanced games? Where winning has nothing to do with who is better? You really like doing this hours a week?

Quote:

> you simple don't understand that it takes nearly no skill for a monk to hold off a
> sword warrior. It really takes no skill for a ranger to hold off an ele.

You'd be surprised. There's still secondary class, not to mention that a difference in power can be made up with a difference in skill.

In team arena - I as a monk can hold out pretty fine against one warrior. 2 hammer warriors can be a big threat, but one alone, without support can't get me down. On the other hand one mesmer can shut me down completely.

You can argue a Warrior/Mesmer or Me/W can shut me down quickly - that is true. But what about a ranger? A Me/W will stand no chance against a R/N with life transfer, poison, snares and interrupts.

Quote:

I can be one level less and kill an unskilled one, whereas I can be underpowered as a class and still have the upper hand. Sure, at the same skill level, I'll be walked on. That's life.

If you play against totally unskilled players: yes.
but with everyone on a decent level a 1v1 comes down to the build and who can counter the other better - not player skills.

In Tombs and 4v4 you sometimes see 1v1 and you always know in front who is going to win. so it normally is a run and hide instead of fight and die.

I

FrogDevourer · Aug 19, 2005, 10:14 AM // 10:14

Sorry, can't resist:

Red Sonya · Aug 19, 2005, 10:27 AM // 10:27

[real PvP is team arena, tombs, gvg - everything coordinated.]

Sorry but PvP stands for Player versus Player, so anything that involves player versus player is PvP. Looks like we have another elitiest here who thinks that the way he plays PVP is the only REAL way to play it. NOT!

Sounds like the same silliness when the arguements about what is a REAL RPG and what is not. Neverwinter Nights vs Diablo 2. lol

Schorny · Aug 19, 2005, 10:57 AM // 10:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Sonya

[real PvP is team arena, tombs, gvg - everything coordinated.]

Sorry but PvP stands for Player versus Player, so anything that involves player versus player is PvP. Looks like we have another elitiest here who thinks that the way he plays PVP is the only REAL way to play it. NOT!

Sounds like the same silliness when the arguements about what is a REAL RPG and what is not. Neverwinter Nights vs Diablo 2. lol

Real PvP is me just referring short term for "PvP in GW as its current state"

Because as I pointed out, 1v1 won't be balanced, therefore I can't count it as 'serious PvP' - because PvP means competition to me. And competition without a fair base is not real competition.

Therefore I call PvP as its current state in GW as 'real PvP' and 1v1 as 'unreal PvP' because it lacks many important points that identifies PvP for me. To say PvP is everything that includes Player versus Player is the same as saying football is everything that includes at least one foot and a ball.

I'm really glad that you know how to completly miss all my points and brag about one word that I used. And I'm really glad that you know better what I think than I am do. And I'm really glad that you are so much more intelligent than me. Thank you.

I think I'll quit this thread. Calimar was the first to actually try to discuss things. Thank you Calimar - it would have been really nice to discuss about it with you, but unfortunately the immature people make this thread a joke. Sorry about it.

Red Sonya · Aug 19, 2005, 11:11 AM // 11:11

I noticed you used the word "me" a lot in your rebuttal, once again an elitist attitude. If you're going to define a word or phrase for yourself then you might add content to that effect instead of gaffing and rebutting smoke after you have been caught in your action.

You're correct no one can read your mind or know what and how you think, so therefore you need more description of what you do mean instead of presenting a general terminology as REAL pvp is thus in thus because you say so (elitist).

And when you are in a losing situation I see you use the normal statements of "immature people make this thread a joke". Is that how you find salvation for your loss?

And I'm glad I am so much more intelligent than you also. Thank you.

Mithie · Aug 19, 2005, 12:10 PM // 12:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by film

thx rude guy, but i have a feeling your wrong, i'm not talking about a tournament style edition "who's the best at 1v1" i'm talking about creating counter builds. for ex: which sort of build best counters the 'template of the month' build. which in that case you would have one guild member playing the 'template of the month' and you would try to come up with the best way to dismantle that template

Wha... I wasn't being rude.

"Template of the month" builds are only template of the month builds because they have support. Take any build, strip away the support, and they're nothing.

For example: your caster just got destroyed by a quickshot ranger, so you try to come up with a template that'll counter it. Well, you figure an el/mo with aegis and shielding hands might make you live longer. So you 1v1 a quickshot ranger, and HEY, it works. You take that build in a real team game and guess what, Natures Renewal gets slammed and you're done.

If you can counter a build in 1v1, there's no guarrentee your build can counter that same build when there are 3 or 7 other characters in play.

Hell, the only reason "Templates of the Month" are good is because they perform well within a specific team.

film · Aug 19, 2005, 08:01 PM // 20:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mithie

Wha... I wasn't being rude.

"Template of the month" builds are only template of the month builds because they have support. Take any build, strip away the support, and they're nothing.

For example: your caster just got destroyed by a quickshot ranger, so you try to come up with a template that'll counter it. Well, you figure an el/mo with aegis and shielding hands might make you live longer. So you 1v1 a quickshot ranger, and HEY, it works. You take that build in a real team game and guess what, Natures Renewal gets slammed and you're done.

If you can counter a build in 1v1, there's no guarrentee your build can counter that same build when there are 3 or 7 other characters in play.

Hell, the only reason "Templates of the Month" are good is because they perform well within a specific team.

i still see a few things wrong with your idealology. first, so you create a counter build and practice in comp. arenas.... what are the chances your going to run accross someone who has the build your trying to counter? Secondly theres no garuntee your build can can perform the way it should no matter which kind of practice you have 1v 2v..8v based on what the other teams packing. Howabout setting up a non guild staged battle.... like maybe a 4v4 or 8v8 among guildmates or just friends... this would allow some practice without letting other guilds know what your trying out. I guess you could just make umbrella guilds or something for that but w.e. Outside all this technicallities lies the fun factor.... no one can deny they wouldn't like to pwn some newb trash talking you while in random arena's, or just play against friends for the hell of it..... it doesn't have to be competative... just fun. its definatly not going to hurt the game at all. At worste it would just be one of those unused options of the games, like beastmastery :P j/k

neoteo · Aug 20, 2005, 09:08 AM // 09:08

i would love to see 1 vs 1 , really open minded , like i said , only for rpg chars , and total freedomm , no level restriction , no profession restriction , just meet in a town , clic on battle teleport to a random 1 vs 1 arena , fight , win or lose , go back ..

no fame , no faction , no exp , no gold , no trades .

just fun

becose , ok we know warrior/mo vs anything , its easy to bet ... but if the level cap is diferent , everything changes , and yes the low level warrior would be dumb to play with high level anything , but hey , people like me like hard chalanges ... with no restricyions , you would make it fair or unfair , and not the game rules ... you chose who to fight , and since even profession tags can be tricky , you never really know where is the power .

if i make my selfe clear ..

just my opinion

Kamatsu · Aug 20, 2005, 09:49 AM // 09:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by neoteo

i would love to see 1 vs 1 , really open minded , like i said , only for rpg chars , and total freedomm , no level restriction , no profession restriction , just meet in a town , clic on battle teleport to a random 1 vs 1 arena , fight , win or lose , go back ..

Gah, I have enough troubles with random ppl inviting me to party with them or PM's asking me to leave my guild and join their's... last thing I want whenever I'm in town is to be randomly spammed with "XX wants to Battle you! Do you accept?" as I try and sell my loot, buy id/salvage kits, stop by storage, etc.

And I guarantee you that unless ANet put in a toggle to completely ignore these 1v1 battle thingies.. people will quickly get peeved off at the constant harrassement of "XX wants to Battle you!" offers/invitations.. and it would happen. If people just blindly to group invites, guild invites now.. people would do blind "1v1" invites as well.

sure you can just ignore em.. just like I do with party invites now. But to have another means for ppl to bug/annoy me in towns... no thanx.

And so far I still have yet to see any real reason for this to be implemented apart from "I want it" & "I think it would be fun" & "Oh, you can just ignore em if you don't want to do it!". Forget the balance.. in fact you & your supporter's just don't seem to grasp the whole balance issue.

Quote:

no fame , no faction , no exp , no gold , no trades .

And if this was implemented and enough people actually did it... they would then start to whine and complain and moan and post saying they want to get fame/faction/etc from these fights... and then you'd have people whining that 1v1 isn't balanced and that all these uber solo monk builds are pwning their butts, etc.. and whining for the classes to be balanced for 1v1.. which would screw up group battle.. but who cares! the 1v1'er's want it balanced!

Quote:

no level restriction , no profession restriction , just meet in a town , clic on battle teleport to a random 1 vs 1 /// becose , ok we know warrior/mo vs anything , its easy to bet ... but if the level cap is diferent , everything changes , and yes the low level warrior would be dumb to play with high level anything , but hey , people like me like hard chalanges ... with no restricyions , you would make it fair or unfair , and not the game rules ... you chose who to fight , and since even profession tags can be tricky , you never really know where is the power .

Yes, lets give all those lvl 20 griefer's a chance to sit in ascalon city spamming "Battle" invites on all the low level players till they get to squish the new player who doesn't really know whats going on and accepts it. Yep.. I can just see it now.. trying to do anything.. all the moron griefier's just sitting there spamming those 1v1 invites or trying to con ppl into it. *shrugs*

And trust me.. if you allow it, it will happen.

Eet GnomeSmasher · Aug 20, 2005, 10:23 AM // 10:23

Wow. I read this entire thread and still havent seen one compelling reason against 1V1 type play. There were a whole lot that said "it's not balanced" and how it would be annoying for people to spam duel invites or requests...and how this and that, blah blah blah.

Fact is for all the little annoyances that you people have brought up can be easily fixed. Duel invites probably won't even be implemented in NON ARENA areas. I mean do you get PVP request spam in the game right now? No. They'll more than likely make an arena where you either enter in and fight a random opponent or get to choose who you want to fight. If you don't want to 1v1 and dont want the duel requests then dont go to this specific arena. It's very simple.

As for balance issues? Do you people really think that the random arenas are balanced right now? Of course they arent. They're totally random. Most of the time you'd end up in an unbalanced mix of classes. So does that mean we should take the randoms out? And if someone is dumb enough or just curious enough to bring a monk to fight another monk then why not let them? If you don't like it, you don't have to participate in it. Just like how some PVE players don't play PVP at all.

But yeah, I dont see what the big deal against it is about. I dont really care either way...but to see people so worked up against 1v1 seems a bit silly. Afterall, it's just another option/feature/mode of gameplay. You have a choice whether or not to participate...and unless you're forced into it...there's really no reason to complain.

Red Sonya · Aug 20, 2005, 10:25 AM // 10:25

Yeah I agree with Kamatsu, there would be too much spamming of wanna duel, and a silly window popping up annoying too many people. 1v1 isn't necessary or would be a great improvement to the game. If you want to 1v1 pvp go back to EQ or SWG or many other old style mmorpgs, this is a GUILD wars game not a 1v1 type game.

Eet GnomeSmasher · Aug 20, 2005, 10:36 AM // 10:36

Like I said before... I highly doubt that duel spamming will even be a problem. 1v1 will just be like how the PVP arenas are like now. You warp to an arena and either enter and face a random opponent or send duel invites to anyone in that arena....nowhere else.

Duel invites will highly unlikely be anywhere else other than the actual PVP arenas. It's as simple as that. You're all making a big deal out of nothing.

Kamatsu · Aug 20, 2005, 10:07 PM // 22:07

read Neoteo's post and you wills ee he's saying "in town" for the Duel/Battle Invite. Thats what I was posting about - His suggestion to make it an option in normal towns.

If it was restricted to just the pvp arena area's then that would solve that whole 1 issue that I brought up and prevent at least some issues of griefing. Although it still wouldn't stop the high level griefing of low level's that he's suggested should be allowed - ala no level restrictions. That puts me right off it as even if only allowed in pvp arena's.. you'd have lvl 20 griefer's sitting in ascalon/shiverpeak arena's spamming duel/battle invites on anyone there...

and as for the balance issue - the game is balanced for groups, not 1v1. Are random match's balanced? Not terribly, but the fights in GW are still geared for group's - and btw, what do you mean by "unbalanced team"? I hope your not talking about a team that HAS to have 1-2 W, 1-2 E & 1-2 M to be "balanced".. because if you are.. you might as well just sign off as a n00b and go away

The whole random issue is to try and get you to met new players and work on being able to work as a team with new players. The teams are only as balanced or unbalanced as the team makes it - if nice ppl get randomed together.. who can communicate and work together.. chances are they will win against any random group that can't do any of that.. if if they are all like Me/N

But my biggest concern with the balance issue is the fact that GW isn't balanced for 1v1 and no matter what happenes those who do 1v1 would then start to whine and complaon about it. They would make threads all over the place and whine that 1v1 isn't balanced and they want anet to do something or they will leave the game. Trust me, it will happen if you allow 1v1..

and the problem is.. if anet does give iyt and try and make any balance changes for 1v1.. they will completely screw up the team-based pvp they have in place. I doubt that they would give in and do anything about it tho.... but you know how annoying it will be to read a forum and have a constant flow of "1v1 isn't balanced!" whine threads/posts...

Those are my 2 biggest issues - allowing 1v1 will allow even more griefing than is already in place & the whining about 1v1 not being balanced/fair.. *shrugs*

Eet GnomeSmasher · Aug 20, 2005, 11:47 PM // 23:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by kamatsu

read Neoteo's post and you wills ee he's saying "in town" for the Duel/Battle Invite. Thats what I was posting about - His suggestion to make it an option in normal towns.

I was addressing NeoTeo as well. There are no current PVP requests in outposts so why why 1v1 be any different?

Quote:

Originally Posted by kamatsu

If it was restricted to just the pvp arena area's then that would solve that whole 1 issue that I brought up and prevent at least some issues of griefing. Although it still wouldn't stop the high level griefing of low level's that he's suggested should be allowed - ala no level restrictions. That puts me right off it as even if only allowed in pvp arena's.. you'd have lvl 20 griefer's sitting in ascalon/shiverpeak arena's spamming duel/battle invites on anyone there...

Huh? How is it griefing? It would be mutual consent to duel and dying/losing in a fight does not harm you in any way. BUT I agree that there SHOULD be level restrictions just like the ones in place in arenas right now.

And who cares if people spam in arenas? If you have no intention of doing 1v1 and cant stand the potential spam there, then don't go there. Besides, how could the spam there be any worse than the trade spam going on in outposts?

Quote:

Originally Posted by kamatsu

and as for the balance issue - the game is balanced for groups, not 1v1. Are random match's balanced? Not terribly, but the fights in GW are still geared for group's - and btw, what do you mean by "unbalanced team"? I hope your not talking about a team that HAS to have 1-2 W, 1-2 E & 1-2 M to be "balanced".. because if you are.. you might as well just sign off as a n00b and go away

The whole random issue is to try and get you to met new players and work on being able to work as a team with new players. The teams are only as balanced or unbalanced as the team makes it - if nice ppl get randomed together.. who can communicate and work together.. chances are they will win against any random group that can't do any of that.. if if they are all like Me/N

Random is still random. The very nature of randomness is unbalanced teams. There's nothing wrong with that. Random Arenas are fine. And that's my point...1v1 PVP won't be completely balanced but why does that matter? It would be on the same level as Random Arenas in balance/imbalance. The game will still be balanced for GvG not 1v1 but it doesnt mean 1v1 battles will affect/harm GvG play at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kamatsu

But my biggest concern with the balance issue is the fact that GW isn't balanced for 1v1 and no matter what happenes those who do 1v1 would then start to whine and complaon about it. They would make threads all over the place and whine that 1v1 isn't balanced and they want anet to do something or they will leave the game. Trust me, it will happen if you allow 1v1..

And there arent complainers/whiner threads now? People will always complain. You don't see all the balance complaint threads now? And like I said previously, the game will still be balanced for GvG. You're worrying too much that they'll change that. 1v1 will strictly be for fun, just like how randoms are.

neoteo · Aug 21, 2005, 05:42 AM // 05:42

i know what you guys mean , and i agree , a good cumunity is requered for this kind of free options , with all the skamers , spamers , ego maniacs , etc , i agree with the arena zone for 1vs1 pvp.people are animals need control.

and i really would like to have 1vs1 not jist for fun , but to really know my char power in a solo battle.atm im soloing many pve areas , and trying to solo more and more , to see what are my limits , and what kind of mobs i can win alone.

as a test to know to my selfe.