Curse

IMMORTAlMITCH · Nov 03, 2009, 09:49 AM // 09:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sword of the Kings

You go and play a few matches and can easily figure out what everyone is running that particular day. 99/100 times you're going to end up using that build. That one other time you use a build that is superior to what everyone else is using, now everyone is going to start using it. No matter what it generally ends up being the same teambuild. It may be a "challenge" alright, but does that make it any more fun? For you, maybe it does. Doesn't mean I have to like it.

Well that's because the skill pools (for non NF professions) are a bit too small, usually there is only about 2-3 builds that are even remotely viable.

This is easy to fix with some small tweaks and actually if you play around the time the new deck comes out you'll play against a lot of different builds.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Draikin

Yet it doesn't seem much more popular than HB at this point.

It is harder to play, it takes 4 people to go in instead of just 1 and it doesn't have the tournament support that HB did (yet).

-Pluto- · Nov 03, 2009, 10:31 AM // 10:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Animate

You could even separate GvG into VoD and non-VoD merely for the fun of it.. win-win situations for all.

Actually, best case scenario here is that splitting gvg literally does nothing and everyone sticks with of the two formats and ignores the other. The GvG community, and especially American Gvg, is already small enough. Fragmenting it is the last thing we need. Clearly not win-win in any sense of the word.

GvG needs to be more accessible to other players, if anything. If any sort of split were to be made, I'd say make a gvg outpost so people can form easy non-ladder "gvg" teams and just play some matches against each other. You might have to call it something else, since obviously this isn't "guild" based so much, and it might pretty much kill off ladder for good (ladder teams might just go form in the outpost to get quicker matches), but that shouldn't matter. You'd still have more people GvGing, even if it's not in fact "guild vs guild," and that's all we really need anyway.

The other really cool benefit you might have is you could get new blood into ATs, either from new players being recognized and invited into established guilds, or hell, maybe from a successful regular pug group that decides to move up. The key difference here, though, is that a split like that is actually capable of increasing the player base. Splitting ladder into vod or no vod just splits the current base, but does nothing to bring in new players who are likely far more put off by the annoying and pointless entry barriers to gvg than they are about mechanics like vod that they probably haven't ever had the chance to form an opinion about in the first place.

Possibly even doing something simple like allowing more guests, or getting rid of the 14-day faction cut in gvg would work too. Or even dropping the 14-day limit for ATs (probably not the monthly). Of course, a lot of people will start moaning about smurfing being too easy, but whatever. Not like the high rating guilds don't already have a bajillion second accounts to get around the entry barrier and smurf with anyway...

Sorry for going a bit off-topic.

tl;dr: GvG needs to be accessible to more players.

Kelfer · Nov 03, 2009, 11:18 AM // 11:18

Basically they just tried to stop the insane farming of Balt factions in HB, but the question remains: Is this really the solution. Somewhere half way between the 2 would have been a better compromise. Granted Trappers and the Echo chaining of powerful skills was partly the cause of the "nerf", but a little more inginuety and imagination is needed in GvG, cos there's really lots of ways to test builds first. Allowing the player to take maybe 1 hero and not quite such a limited skill set might have done it

What is the point in having a lot of builds where you're not sure if that skill set will work, or even be present, on the next day after having had a good run? Unbalanced teams is the thing that really disturbs. 3 casters and 1 physical stand no chance in these battles against 3 physicals and 1 caster (Mo)

DreamWind · Nov 03, 2009, 04:13 PM // 16:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by IMMORTAlMITCH

It is harder to play, it takes 4 people to go in instead of just 1 and it doesn't have the tournament support that HB did (yet).

Tournaments aren't going to increase the population much, and if they do it will only be a temporary spike. The real problem is what I said earlier...the format doesn't cater to either casuals or farmers and that is 99% of the GW population today. Most of the good PvP community who would enjoy this format has left the game.

IMMORTAlMITCH · Nov 03, 2009, 04:59 PM // 16:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Tournaments aren't going to increase the population much, and if they do it will only be a temporary spike. The real problem is what I said earlier...the format doesn't cater to either casuals or farmers and that is 99% of the GW population today. Most of the good PvP community who would enjoy this format has left the game.

I suppose that's kinda true, PvP titles besides fame (and even fame I have my doubts about) were simply a bad idea.

A few years ago people played for fun, now they play for some shitty title...

That being said though, CA is still a million times better than Resign Battles.

Krill · Nov 03, 2009, 06:05 PM // 18:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Animate

They don't add new maps, new game modes, new arenas, they add new titles....it would have been no problem to keep TA and HB while introducing CA. You could even separate GvG into VoD and non-VoD merely for the fun of it.. win-win situations for all.

Only so many different ways to do an arena map, adding new ones wouldn't change much unless they had made a TA / HB hybrid that had HB style maps and victory conditions with 4 human players. That would have satisfied nobody though and suffered from all the problems HB did. There's just not a lot of tactical additions (e.g. shrines) you can add on to arena maps without making that that overriding factor. The existing ones with obelisk stands, miasma, spores, etc. are fine being relatively minor.

I also think it would be a very bad idea to further divide the player base. Had anet made accommodations for users to make their own modifications to game types, like practically every other successful game from the beginning it would have been a different story because of the much larger player base, greater enthusiasm and over time the good ideas would have won out. Implementing it now or allowing anet to do it would be a disaster.

IMMORTAlMITCH · Nov 03, 2009, 06:20 PM // 18:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Krill

That would have satisfied nobody though and suffered from all the problems HB did.

I wonder how you think that having a mixed map pool of TA/HB maps in CA would make CA suffer from the same problems HB did, the biggest problems in HB were RR and teleports, neither of which really applies to CA.

Draikin · Nov 03, 2009, 06:57 PM // 18:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by IMMORTAlMITCH

I wonder how you think that having a mixed map pool of TA/HB maps in CA would make CA suffer from the same problems HB did, the biggest problems in HB were RR and teleports, neither of which really applies to CA.

It's not nearly that simple. Teleports were simply the best way of exploiting broken objectives, snares and speedboosts were nowhere near balanced in HB either. Anyway, I'm not sure what makes people so confident that adding HB maps is going to work out. Does anyone asking for HB maps to be included actually have any idea what kind of gameplay they'll get on those maps? I haven't seen anyone question what effects the lvl 24 NPC's would have, or whether or not the Battle Cry shrine is going to be balanced, or if the morale meter is still going to be as broken as it was in HB.

Angel Of Balthazar · Nov 03, 2009, 07:27 PM // 19:27

CA = boringest thing ever. good job.

Krill · Nov 03, 2009, 08:39 PM // 20:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by IMMORTAlMITCH

I wonder how you think that having a mixed map pool of TA/HB maps in CA would make CA suffer from the same problems HB did, the biggest problems in HB were RR and teleports, neither of which really applies to CA.

I said "HB style maps and victory conditions", i.e. HB with 4 humans. Having humans play capway builds would make for an amazingly exciting format...or not. Point is, maps don't matter much for arena style play, yes they all have their quirks but adding new ones or refurbishing HB maps w/o shrines wouldn't change anything except scenery. If you added the HB maps into CA /w shrines and their effects, but kept arena victory conditions (elimination) it would effectively be two different game types...

MMSDome · Nov 03, 2009, 09:08 PM // 21:08

The biggest problems with HB were the AI. Pretty much every problem goes abck to the AI being shit some how so the maps would be completely fine in a 4v4 human format. You won't see the biggest problems on the crossing especially where heroes would cancel repeatedly and run across the map to heal and just be retarded in general.

I think instead of implementing them in CA they make a new arena which is exactly like Hero Battles but with 4 humans. I think CA would be lame on the capping aspect because the builds you get are generally bad.

Use the Hero Battle maps for an entirely new format.

Motoko · Nov 04, 2009, 12:57 AM // 00:57

Adding HB maps to the Codex Arena would actually help balance the daily meta out and prevent 10 minute stunning strike bash fests. Adding a necessity for speed boosts and movement control while adding another degree of tactics would definately require bars to pack more than set defense and offense.

Though this style would definately segregate the superior players from the newcomers even more.

Mr Emu · Nov 04, 2009, 01:17 AM // 01:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Animate

bad ideas and bitching

So basically you want to cut the populations of various formats down even more. great plan. great RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GOing plan. also, cry more.

EDIT: I now see krill has already covered this. my bad

Regulus X · Nov 05, 2009, 07:33 AM // 07:33

CA = another TA [but worse]

bhavv · Nov 29, 2009, 01:59 AM // 01:59

I really enjoy codex arena, but the rank discrimination absolutely sucks.

It should be possible to enter randomly as well, with the game picking any 4 different classes to put together.

lord of all tyria · Nov 29, 2009, 07:15 AM // 07:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhavv

rank discrimination

Your point is invalid.

Sarevok Thordin · Dec 01, 2009, 12:34 AM // 00:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by lord of all tyria

Your point is invalid.

Your post is invalid.

Sankt Hallvard · Dec 01, 2009, 03:35 AM // 03:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sarevok Thordin

Your post is invalid.

lol. u r only a 'desert nomad'. u cant post in this thred.
Lions arch merchant++ only.

Sarevok Thordin · Dec 01, 2009, 03:50 PM // 15:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sankt Hallvard

lol. u r only a 'desert nomad'. u cant post in this thred.
Lions arch merchant++ only.

I joined before you and the other guy.

I r l33t

I on a serious note, bog off

bhavv · Dec 05, 2009, 02:21 AM // 02:21

Oh, do shut up non furnace stoker nubs, and go and ask if your wammo with mending is a good build in the relevant section.

On a serious note, my previous post was particularly aimed at the Codex guilds that only recruit Rank 9 / Glad 6 / Codex 3+ people or something like that.