Curse

Alanus · Apr 02, 2007, 05:47 PM // 17:47

With all the leavers in RA (for those who enjoy RA), 4v4 ends up being 2vs4, or 1vs3, etc; so since HA is no longer 6v6, why not expand the playing field to 6v6 or 5v5? If people want ORGANIZED 4v4, go to TEAM ARENAS. There shouldn't be a crappier version of a 4v4 when there already is an organized one. HB is also 4v4. AB is 12v12, HA is 8v8, as is FA and JQ, so why not RA be 6v6 or 5v5?

Anyone agree?

tenshi_strife · Apr 02, 2007, 05:54 PM // 17:54

hum that could be fun, more players make more chances of getting somewhat decent teammates

/signed

ZenRgy · Apr 02, 2007, 06:22 PM // 18:22

I vote that RA be 100% more randomer!

/notsigned

Kool Pajamas · Apr 02, 2007, 09:29 PM // 21:29

/signed

Might see a little more variety with 6v6. Because seriously how often do you see Paragons in RA? Just one example. 4v4 in a random style eliminates a lot of playstyle and promotes other unwanted types.

Helcaraxe · Apr 02, 2007, 09:35 PM // 21:35

Random Arenas is not broken... do not try to fix it.

The players trying to play Random Arenas are broken... good luck fixing them.

/notsigned

Not A Fifty Five · Apr 02, 2007, 09:35 PM // 21:35

would be a simple, fun change from 2 years of RA with no change.

Also, matches would end up being <<shorter>> on average because monks will be more spread out

Also, gladiator points would be more TA based (good thing!) since it would be insane to get a glad in 6 vs 6 random

Deleet · Apr 02, 2007, 11:30 PM // 23:30

Why dont we just make RA 12v12 on the same maps. Oh and rename it to Team Deathmatch Arena. Signed

gameshoes3003 · Apr 02, 2007, 11:36 PM // 23:36

Hasn't there been a suggestion for 6v6 or 5v5 Random Arenas?
Also 6v6 seems a bit... long... People want their faction, or get gladiator points fast. But then there are people who enjoy longer battles...
I can't really say I dislike the idea. But I'm not digging it.
/notsigned

Not A Fifty Five · Apr 02, 2007, 11:46 PM // 23:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by gameshoes3003

Hasn't there been a suggestion for 6v6 or 5v5 Random Arenas?
Also 6v6 seems a bit... long... People want their faction, or get gladiator points fast. But then there are people who enjoy longer battles...
I can't really say I dislike the idea. But I'm not digging it.
/notsigned

erm.. 6 vs 6 would mean much more faction per minute. Especially since monks would be evened out.

To illustrate, imagine RA being 12000 vs 12000 ignoring lag(that would be freakin hilarious btw)

Lastly yes, glad points would be more difficult, not because of time, but because the individual is worth less. Which would make TA more the gladiator place where it should be (I make 80% of my glads in RA. Sure its somewhat slower than a good TA team, but being out of a guild yeah.. no good ta teams. Average TA pugger is worse than the average RA player)

Master Ketsu · Apr 03, 2007, 04:45 AM // 04:45

Quote:

Average TA pugger is worse than the average RA player

I require TA pugers to be either r6 or Glad1....that usually mitigates at least the ones worse then average RA'rs

<----mighty glad

And btw /NOTSIGNED.

RA already takes poor amount of skill compared to other arenas as it is. Making it 6v6 would only detract from individual skill altogether.

The only change I suggest to RA is to actually make it slightly less random: Intelligent RA. AKA: No 4 Monk teams. 3 of a kind should be banned from RA.

Not A Fifty Five · Apr 03, 2007, 07:19 AM // 07:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Master Ketsu

I require TA pugers to be either r6 or Glad1....that usually mitigates at least the ones worse then average RA'rs

<----mighty glad

And btw /NOTSIGNED.

RA already takes poor amount of skill compared to other arenas as it is. Making it 6v6 would only detract from individual skill altogether.

The only change I suggest to RA is to actually make it slightly less random: Intelligent RA. AKA: No 4 Monk teams. 3 of a kind should be banned from RA.

Yeah I sometimes TA with gladiator pugs but gawd, its so hard to find a glad 1 some days.

6 vs 6 would detract from individual skill but that's why I'd support it. Gladiator points would be nigh impossible thus giving more attention to RA for faction and TA for gladiator points.

In any case, would you agree that it would make for a really cool and easy to code test weekend? There are no extreme negative problems with it.

Surena · Apr 03, 2007, 07:29 AM // 07:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Helcaraxe

Random Arenas is not broken... do not try to fix it.

The players trying to play Random Arenas are broken... good luck fixing them.

/notsigned

You are broken because you're a wannabe-elitist with a guild > 1000. Don't sadface now.

If you want to fix RA, don't allow sync-teams. Nothing else needed.

max gladius · Apr 03, 2007, 01:56 PM // 13:56

6 on 6 would be nice for a few reasons, i think it would cut down on rage quiters.... cause a team of 4 w/ 2 dead weight can beat team of 6... but note i said dead weight... leaching will definatly replace the rage quitters.....

as for the sync teams they have tried fixing that many ways, and it has cut down alot on it... but i agree it is still a problem...

/halfsigned

Wretchman Drake · Apr 03, 2007, 02:47 PM // 14:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Helcaraxe

Random Arenas is not broken... do not try to fix it.

The players trying to play Random Arenas are broken... good luck fixing them.

/notsigned

You fail at trying to be an elitist-wannabe.

RA is broken because the system doesn't punish RA leavers, it's like children that keep jumping on furniture and destroying the house, the parents should do something to stop it. Same deal, Anet needs to step up and do SOMETHING about rage quitters that would hurt their account entirely rather than RA specifics, aka if you rage more than a specific amount of times your acct is suspended for a few days. That would show them.

I understand if people leave after a long match, or if someone else leaves, leaving your team defenseless, so if they could incorperate that into it, that would be nice.

TheRaven · Apr 03, 2007, 05:45 PM // 17:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wretchman Drake

You fail at trying to be an elitist-wannabe.

RA is broken because the system doesn't punish RA leavers, it's like children that keep jumping on furniture and destroying the house, the parents should do something to stop it. Same deal, Anet needs to step up and do SOMETHING about rage quitters that would hurt their account entirely rather than RA specifics, aka if you rage more than a specific amount of times your acct is suspended for a few days. That would show them.

I understand if people leave after a long match, or if someone else leaves, leaving your team defenseless, so if they could incorperate that into it, that would be nice.

Well, i definitely support punishing the rage-quitters (see other thread), but I can't support this idea. It's overkill. Kinda like sentencing someone to 6 months in prison for going 65 in the 45 mph zone.

Instead just implement a deterrent. If you exit an RA match before it's over, you cannot re-join another match for 5 minutes. Simple solution that removes the advantages to rage-quitting. This penalty also should not be imposed if you were not the first person to leave or if the match lasted longer than 10 minutes.

About the 6v6 idea, I really don't know how I feel about that one. I guess I'd have to try it first to see. (Good idea for a test weekend!) I'm definitely worried about leechers popping up and also that it would be harder to start a match during off times.

Hikan Trilear · Apr 03, 2007, 06:14 PM // 18:14

I think the best way to punish rage quitting would be loss of balthazarr faction...

After all, you're supposed to earn favor with him through courage and battle prowess, it would make since for a loss of favor for "retreating" or "giving up"...

Does-it-Matter · Apr 03, 2007, 06:30 PM // 18:30

Two quick things...

In reference to the "anti-syncing" Master Ketsu mentioned, banning Alliance members would be controlling a random element (ignoring, of course, that no computer can truly execute a random function).

Statistically, it IS possible to just click on Join Match and end up with a friend/alliance/guild member. My roommate and I have been on the same team or opposing teams once or twice without trying to "fix it."

But yes, I agree that any attempt to affect a random outcome SHOULD be addressed.

On to my second point...

I say this just about every time the debate of leavers comes up. There is a game that came out roughly a year ago (read about it in a PC Gamer article) set in Roman-Era Britain. In it, if you leave a PvP-styled match pre-maturely, your character is crucified (banned) for seven days.

And yes, if I recall correctly, the developers of said game they would take in to account internet-disconnect issues.

Just stating that as there is the code/desire to do that already in effect.

And, if anyone knows the name of the game I'm speaking of, or has played it, I'd be more than interested to know how that system has worked out since its implementation.

Yaga Philipe · Apr 03, 2007, 06:57 PM // 18:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Does-it-Matter

Two quick things...

In reference to the "anti-syncing" Master Ketsu mentioned, banning Alliance members would be controlling a random element (ignoring, of course, that no computer can truly execute a random function).

Statistically, it IS possible to just click on Join Match and end up with a friend/alliance/guild member. My roommate and I have been on the same team or opposing teams once or twice without trying to "fix it."

But yes, I agree that any attempt to affect a random outcome SHOULD be addressed.

On to my second point...

I say this just about every time the debate of leavers comes up. There is a game that came out roughly a year ago (read about it in a PC Gamer article) set in Roman-Era Britain. In it, if you leave a PvP-styled match pre-maturely, your character is crucified (banned) for seven days.

And yes, if I recall correctly, the developers of said game they would take in to account internet-disconnect issues.

Just stating that as there is the code/desire to do that already in effect.

And, if anyone knows the name of the game I'm speaking of, or has played it, I'd be more than interested to know how that system has worked out since its implementation.

I think there should be some kind of punishment for leavers. Maybe a loss of faction or a mark over your head. Maybe even a short ban (30 mins?) after you get warned 2 times.

Patrick Smit · Apr 03, 2007, 08:26 PM // 20:26

Disconnect > rage quit

Any attempt to fix quitters will be countered by "intelligent" measures, and punish the innocent.

Syncing could be disturbed by adding players together that accessed at randomly different times. So a team is formed from players that entered within a certain timespan. Players that "sync" will not form 1 team, Making a pool from which players are randomly selected is better then just hooking them up as fast as possible to form a team.

Does-it-Matter · Apr 03, 2007, 10:36 PM // 22:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrick Smit

Disconnect > rage quit

The Game can already distinguish between one who left the instance and one who disconnected (as the re-connect feature demonstrates.)

Now of course people would then pull their net to Rage quit, although that is a bit contrived. A way to fix that would be to add a two minute cool-down period to anyone who leaves via disconnect.

If you have dialup, it's going to take about that long to reconnect and perhaps open up the game again. If you have cable and you're reseting your modem/router, it may take that long as well.

---

And actually, now that it hit me... with disconnects it brings you back to the place you left anyways (if you choose to), so all that Rage Quitting is just causing you more grief to get back to the same spot you tried to leave.

If the person attempts to say "no I don't want to go back to where I was" then implement the same punishment for someone who leaves the match via mapping.

Problem solved, disconnects are not hindered.