Curse

Yen-lo-wang · Jul 29, 2005, 09:10 PM // 21:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Padre

The reason there are only 8-person teams in PvP is that any higher and real strategy breaks down. Try to coordinate a 32 man team.... and you'll get nothing but chaos as soon as you run into the other team.

it would be interesting to watch, i suppose, but not all that fun to play.

This may have been brought up before, but BF2 has an AWESOME system to help this.

BF2 uses a "Commander" and "Squads". GW Could easily alter this to "General" and "Troops" or somesuch thing, and keep the dynamic the same.

Basic way this works:

*The commander has added command-type options, such as chats to each of his teams to make squad-based commands easier (this is where BF2's integrated VOIP system owns, but I digress) and the like.
*Each squad/team/whatever can operate with their fellow squads or freelance, and obviously there are tactical advantages to each, as well as disadvantages.

It's obviously a bit more complex than that, but that's the basic feel of it. It COULD be done and I think that in a GW environment, such a system of PvP/GvG would OWN!

johnnylange · Jul 29, 2005, 09:25 PM // 21:25

trying to get 8 players ready for GvG is bad enough, trying manage everyone is harder. But having 32 in a team sounds like the best idea untill you put it into reality...that's when everything goes to hell. Thumbs down on this.

quanzong · Jul 30, 2005, 12:44 AM // 00:44

Lol, you can coordinate strategy in 24 v 24 games. Whats you think happens in 8v8? Same will happen in 24v24, FOLLOW THE LEADER! I'm attacking, then everyone presses T. This isnt some Quake1 Capture the flag, where you need people defending base, camping areas, this is Guild Wars, follow the leader edition. Plus they have VENT and TS, which makes it whole lot faster without typing, but I think 1 caller and everyone press T owns vent ts, and chat.

PieXags · Jul 30, 2005, 01:02 AM // 01:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnnylange

trying to get 8 players ready for GvG is bad enough, trying manage everyone is harder. But having 32 in a team sounds like the best idea untill you put it into reality...that's when everything goes to hell. Thumbs down on this.

I'm not talking 32 man parties, I'm talking sides made up of multiple parties, as in groups of like 40vs40...each side made up of multiple groups of 8, just kickin' the other team's ass. And in that much chaos you could go in solo and still help out, it'd definately get me more into PvP.

Ende · Jul 30, 2005, 01:16 AM // 01:16

it's a wonderful idea, and tech permitting, it will take this game to a whole new level. i was showing this game to a friend who's an officer in the army and we talked about just that. he said it's not too different than modern combat, only the rules of the game are slightly different.

to all you guys fearing 32 ele's spiking one target, yes, if he's on his own, but in order to do that, all 32 have to be in one spot. make the map larger, give each team a larger area to defend or different mission objectives and tricky terrain and those 32 ele's will kill the one warrior martyr while their base gets stomped by 31 other guys. the options are endless...

also it will require breaking it up to units of 8, which answer to central command. we can even have a person playing the general who isnt actually on the battlefield, helping out on the strategic level (like they do in modern warfare with central command sitting somewhere in a different continent).

all in all, it's a great way to expand the game and you'll see, the more people involved, the higher level of strategy it will require, no one group build will own this, as long as people use their heads, and listen to their leaders.

give us virtual wars, not real ones !

KelvinC · Jul 30, 2005, 01:29 AM // 01:29

It would be more interesting if the war is based on guild alliance such as Asclon vs Kyra vs Orr, and guilds must choose from one of those alliance. When having a war it is like 3 guilds on the same alliance vs the other guild on the other alliance.

When a alliance win it will some gain some rewards, such as some land and income.

quanzong · Jul 30, 2005, 01:35 AM // 01:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by KelvinC

It would be more interesting if the war is based on guild alliance such as Asclon vs Kyra vs Orr, and guilds must choose from one of those alliance. When having a war it is like 3 guilds on the same alliance vs the other guild on the other alliance.

When a alliance win it will some gain some rewards, such as some land and income.

Asclon, Kyrta, and Orr are COUNTRIES, or EMPIRES, not guilds. I think if you win and get land is bad idea, because everyone has land then.

johnnylange · Jul 30, 2005, 03:05 AM // 03:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by PieXags

I'm not talking 32 man parties, I'm talking sides made up of multiple parties, as in groups of like 40vs40...each side made up of multiple groups of 8, just kickin' the other team's ass. And in that much chaos you could go in solo and still help out, it'd definately get me more into PvP.

Ah, that changes everything then! Kind reminds me of one PvP battle we did trying to get into the HoH...I think it was 4 groups though. Yes, this would a really great idea!

KelvinC · Jul 30, 2005, 03:25 AM // 03:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by quanzong

Asclon, Kyrta, and Orr are COUNTRIES, or EMPIRES, not guilds. I think if you win and get land is bad idea, because everyone has land then.

No no no.. Read the Guildwars Lore booklet. Under the section History of Tyria, page 30 (my version).

it said:
"Over the next hundred years, the human kingdoms prospered. Powerful groups grew up within each nation. These were known as guilds. It was these groups, these guilds, that held the real power in Tyria. Though these were kings and organisations that made the laws and regulated the land, it was the guild that enforced these laws, or didn't, as they saw fit. As these guilds grew, their influence began to overlap.
..
The kings of Ascalon, Kryta and Orr were not powerful enough to stop the conflict, for the armies of the guilds were even more powerful than those of their own home nations."

tolokoph · Jul 30, 2005, 04:51 AM // 04:51

negative vote here.. the game wasn't designed for big battles for 1.

if you want 32/50/100 vs what the heck ever.. go play WoW where you can lag yer butt around and cast instant spells that take 10 seconds or more to execute..

bad idea

PieXags · Jul 30, 2005, 05:24 AM // 05:24

Now it's not like you wouldn't have the current system of PvP, and you wouldn't have to participate in the wars, so why does it matter if we have them or not? I say add giant battles, those who want 'em can fight in 'em and those who don't don't have to.

Hell Marauder · Jul 30, 2005, 06:46 AM // 06:46

Giant battles will create giant lag. But you don't really need 64 vs 64 to create an impression of a giant war. You can make victory won through small 8 vs 8 skirmishes meaningful in a bigger strategic sense, like pushing your alliance/nation's front line a little bit further. As long as there's a giant war going on and our little victories mean something to that giant war, you have create a good impression of massive war without creating massive lag.

Swarnt Brightstar · Jul 30, 2005, 01:50 PM // 13:50

Yeah, I love it... I mean, think about it, in HoH there's 6 teams of 8, correct? That means that there's a total of 48 people playing on that small map! Why cant they just be divided into two teams instead of 6?

quanzong · Jul 30, 2005, 10:24 PM // 22:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by KelvinC

No no no.. Read the Guildwars Lore booklet. Under the section History of Tyria, page 30 (my version).

it said:
"Over the next hundred years, the human kingdoms prospered. Powerful groups grew up within each nation. These were known as guilds. It was these groups, these guilds, that held the real power in Tyria. Though these were kings and organisations that made the laws and regulated the land, it was the guild that enforced these laws, or didn't, as they saw fit. As these guilds grew, their influence began to overlap.
..
The kings of Ascalon, Kryta and Orr were not powerful enough to stop the conflict, for the armies of the guilds were even more powerful than those of their own home nations."

Guilds dont have Kings, they just have leaders. Also if they were guild then there would be supreme ruler, but since there is no supreme ruler those are empires.
Also if you talk to the dude in Ascalon about guilds he doesnt allow them under Ascalon EMPIRE, because of the LAST GUILD battle in that EMPIRE.

MoldyRiceFrenzy · Jul 31, 2005, 03:19 AM // 03:19

Must Have War Please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Chrisby Pwns · Aug 01, 2005, 04:49 AM // 04:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by ComMan

Why does everyone want Guild Wars to have EVERYTHING WoW has?

yeah seriously, stop trying to make GW into WoW. The game was ment NOT to have huge battles because it would be:
1: totally unfair, 12 monks and 20 spikers with coordinated spiking on 5 targets at a time would be insain.
2: Really hard to coordinate with 32 people trying to do their own thing.
3: not fun at all. It would suck to see 6 warriors charge at ur and slice and dice your mangled necrotic body.

PieXags · Aug 01, 2005, 04:56 AM // 04:56

It's obvious you've never participated in a large battle such as one we're describing, Chrisby, while you'd think it's all chaos it actually takes more skill and is a lot more fast paced than a normal battle, and it's FAR from "5 warriors run up to you, slice" and you're dead. Hell ANYONE can throw on a simple defensive spell and stop 5 warriors for about 10 seconds at least while the rest of their team takes care of them.

And once again, the devs will tell us what the game should have and what it shouldn't have, your words are your opinions only, so quit trying to act as if you're CEO of Anet.

Large battles in this game would be NOTHING like WoW. Why? In WoW you've lvl 80's ganking lvl 50's, you've ever manner of unbalance known to an RPG, while the godly tear people apart and the average get thrown into the dust with a single skill, it isn't a war it's a massacre half the time. GuildWars could pull off wars BETTER than WoW.

And who CARES even if "wars" are in WoW? Why SHOULDN'T you implement a good idea into a game? Hell EVERY FPS game is darn near the same with a few differences, and they're one of (if not the) most successful sort of game out there, so don't make it sound like more good things will turn the game bad.

And you've failed to specify a reason to not have one, OTHER than that YOU don't want one. Why the hell shouldn't we have another form of PvP that more people would enjoy? You could still participate in your form, and those who wanted to do it could do it. So...can you actually tell us a valid reason not to have wars? Too hard on the server? I don't think you can really tell us that, as we've no way of really knowing. But the idea wouldn't ever get implemented if the idea wasn't tossed out there.

Chrisby Pwns · Aug 01, 2005, 05:07 AM // 05:07

Ok... If you could get 2 guilds with 32 people each on. ok. go ahead and have a war. (honestly i think this goal is a little unrealistic).
I think that HoH is War enough for everyone. 8 teams of 8 is a pretty big war i would say.

entropy · Aug 01, 2005, 06:09 AM // 06:09

8 teams of 8 is tiny. For a war maybe Anet could set up a week every month or 2 months or so for a War. With 32vs32 or 100vs100. Of Couse i think the best way to manage the teams would be to haev 8 teams of 8 yes... but its 4 teams vs 4 teams. Minor details such as forming the group can be talked about later. Then during that time you could have a rating system of some kind. Small battles give you a few points Larger ones moreso. It could help advance the storyline as well. And there could be different factions you could choose from not just 2. Maybe as much as 6. Each one could also have a special bonus. It really isnt That hard to coordintae that many people you just need the right people. Because of only haveing the war every so often the lag would be reduced significantly I totally support. Also having catapults and other things on map would be sooooo much fun

shady_knife · Aug 01, 2005, 11:05 AM // 11:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ytrill

will never ever happen...Anet would have to change the entire GW skin for this...32 people in your party window? trying to scroll down every second to spam heal? Not likely. And like the above person stated, it would be complete chaos, there is no way you could lead 32 people...Especially random people. It's hard enough to get an 8 man group to form a strat.

simple.

8 to a team right.

you want 32 players Vs 32 players.

4 Teams Vs 4 Teams

maps could be like this
__________________________
| |
| | | | | 1 side spawns 1 side,
| | | | | the other side the other side.

| | | | |
| | | | |
| |
77777777777777777777777777

you could have 1 min prep time. maybe, just an idea. ok hte map stuffs up when i submit it >.< dang.