Curse

distilledwill · Jul 28, 2008, 01:13 AM // 01:13

I have to admit, ive yet to make it ot the end of this months final. It just seemed like both teams lacked the kind of damage to actually harm each other. Monks and mesmers all over the place.

Especially with the only physicals in the game running the flags... which was odd.

Kerwyn Nasilan · Jul 28, 2008, 05:36 AM // 05:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkNecrid

It isn't mAT lags. If you would have checked the countless other topics, the game has been this bad all day long.

Sorry I meant lag effecting the mAT

Motoko Kusanagi War · Jul 28, 2008, 05:50 AM // 05:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guillaume De Sonoma

Mitch is right though.

No, Mitch made a speculation.

I will also make a speculation that [pd] would have placed higher than [aFk].

Div · Jul 28, 2008, 06:47 AM // 06:47

Amazed there's still so much drama surrounding a nearly dead game. On guru of all places.

Can ewan · Jul 28, 2008, 07:09 AM // 07:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Motoko Kusanagi War

No, Mitch made a speculation.

I will also make a speculation that [pd] would have placed higher than [aFk].

Mitch is right though.

Guillaume De Sonoma · Jul 28, 2008, 07:35 AM // 07:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Motoko Kusanagi War

No, Mitch made a speculation.

I will also make a speculation that [pd] would have placed higher than [aFk].

Depends on how many clumsiness mesmers we run

waka waka waka

Morgan Crowe · Jul 28, 2008, 02:47 PM // 14:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by holymasamune

Amazed there's still so much drama surrounding a nearly dead game. On guru of all places.

The game is cool, still haven't found an mmorpg that's fun like Guild Wars (especially GvG).

Most people who say the game is dead are still playing.

wally · Jul 28, 2008, 02:58 PM // 14:58

I guess the problem with VoD (still) is that it's just not nuanced enough in terms of answer/response options.

It began as a way to blast through the kinds of stalemates like pRp vs. EP at the American quals, and it was a pretty good solution - make the guild lords meet up and all of the NPCs get together for a tea party and play russian roulette. Except the pistol is fully loaded and it isn't a pistol; it's a gatling gun.

Given the kind of skill that top players (still) have and when winning is on the line, virtually all top teams can "stall" to VoD. And if you know you can do that (or more importantly, your opponent can stall - esp. *build* to stall - which you can't prevent), then it makes total sense to make sure you get it right.

Look at it this way: you've got philosophy seminar. There are two assignments all semester: a mid-term paper and a final paper. the first is 20% of your grade and the final is 80%. It makes absolute sense to *not RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GO up* the final. It's not a complete analogy, but you bring your A game to the final. If you can afford your A game at the midterm, cool -- but if not...well, A game is reserved for the final.

So, the way it stands now, VoD is a little *too* heavily weighted, but I think there is relatively little that can be done. Given the wide skillsets available, I think it'll almost always be able to stall to VoD. Or stated another way -- forcing teams to be unable to stall to VoD would be so restrictive a move so as to be really unhealthy for the game. More so than the current stalling.

A more fixable problem, and I think I've intimated this before, is how to make VoD a little bit less like those crazy arcade claws that give you an attempt to snatch a stuffed animal for 25 cents (the more $$ you have, the better chance you'll get one!) and more like kung fu fighting on top of a speeding train going off the tracks and into a volcano.

The largest liability still is the inflexibility of the AI. Essentially, if the opposing team draws aggro in a manageable way, there is *nothing* you can do about it. Except try to do the same to your opponent. This already is a really bad situation. You are limited basically to doing exactly what your opponent does or blow up. Like if someone cracked the safe you put your precious pot o' gold, you can't close it! The only thing you can do is hope to god you can crack open the other team's safe. *This* is a degenerate option tree.

What are the solutions? The problem is that it will be impossible to code AI that cannot be exploited by human players. So, why not give the tools to other human players who can roughly override AI exploits?

Leaving aside the Guild Lords (I think they are fine the way they are -- you have a force a stand otherwise you risk pRp v. EP stalling), there are two solutions that come to mind:

1) Give the team leader the ability to group-flag the NPCs like what happens now for Heroes/Hench -- *only* at VoD.

2) Beginning at VoD -- allow players to speak to NPCs and get them to follow, like the Juggernauts in Eternal Grove (or the Smoke Phantoms in Sanctum Cay).

I think this will also make it easier to find skills-based options to encourage more daring play. Currently, NPCs are valuable solely for their brute strength at VoD. The meta now gives players certain options to withstand an imbalanced NPC match-up very briefly. Because this is coupled with inflexibility of deployment (i.e. susceptibility to manipulation), there is no granularity. The window during which the battle could go either way is quite small *and* the ways in which you can affect the circumstances are too limited.

To go back to a school analogy, VoD, as it is currently, plays out like an end-of-year multiple-choice question. Sure there's some nuance, sure it's not easy. But it can be hard to tease out who really knows their stuff. If you really want to know how good someone is, especially when compared to someone else, make them write papers. In other words, keep the stakes high, but give them more tools.

Snow Bunny · Jul 28, 2008, 04:15 PM // 16:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Can ewan

Mitch is right though.

kekekekekeke.

It's funny 'cause it's true.

Motoko Kusanagi War · Jul 28, 2008, 09:16 PM // 21:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snow Bunny

kekekekekeke.

It's funny 'cause it's true.

Based on [mkay] having a build advantage 2v2 against [pd] and [mkay] failing really really badly. It is fair to say [pd] would have won. My speculation has evidence, yours does not.

Thank you for your opinion, but it has no sustainable backup.

Snow Bunny · Jul 28, 2008, 09:22 PM // 21:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Motoko Kusanagi War

Based on [mkay] having a build advantage 2v2 against [pd] and [mkay] failing really really badly. It is fair to say [pd] would have won. My speculation has evidence, yours does not.

Thank you for your opinion, but it has no sustainable backup.

Except for the fact they're a better guild and have done historically better?

I mean, [pd] has done pretty well, but [mkay]'s done better.

osorry forgot 2v2 on frozen meant something.

Tearz1993 · Jul 28, 2008, 09:38 PM // 21:38

I think no one knows who would have won mkay vs pd, because it would probably be decided by a stupid mistake on either team at VoD (probably not skill)

oshit