Curse

Pauli · Dec 05, 2010, 06:09 PM // 18:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Missing HB

Once again ( only on that part though ) i disagree . I remember of people who did tank very easily in Hero Battles , though they were still very good players and they kept proving it in AT/MAT's ( i can remember of king of dark throne , chloe dead , kmt , toff for example. I could argue about some for GvG too.
Fact is it's too easy to tank down rating and " farm less good " players , and it was already a problem in HB. People aswell don't care at all of being " mocked " ...However , they would just need to add some kind of dishonor title , it would fix all problems....

Upon the rest , well you seem to have thought a lot of about this , considering your long ideas and posts , and well i hope they will do such things though...

A dishonor title could be a solution, maybe. Otherwise it could revolve around victories per day (not consecutive victories!). For example, if you won 10 times that day you'd be forced to face teams of better leagues (if you want to keep fighting, that is). It should be per account. The whole idea was also meant, among other things, to get rid of the titles and the consecutive wins requirement.

Maver1ck87 · Dec 05, 2010, 07:54 PM // 19:54

Hey guys, if I didnt have exams id do this now. Till exams are done 99% of brain has to be on those. You aint gonna get anything like this set up by ANET, they dont have the time or the people.

HOWEVER, you guys hurd of the rawrcup??? rawr organised it a while back and they had IG prizes. They ran 3 leagues Wolf division, tiger division, Phoenix division. Knock out with or without group stages etc...
people entered teams of 8 cos they did with GvG and anet provided some support.

Why not organise a GWGuru Codex Arena tourament. Have a sign up, for different leagues (2 or 3 or 4). Leagues run on approximate skill i.e. Bambi league (r0-3, g0-1, c0-1), Wolf league (r4-9), tiger divison r9-r12, pheonix division for top end players.

Entry fee of 10k/team

run it over a period of days/weeks so that teams can easily sync to face eachother

3 battles per match up (i.e. winner of 2 goes through)

Can change skills between matches - however each matchup needs to be finished within 1 skill rotation (i.e. within a 6 hour period)

Prizes for 1st 2nd 3rd 4th in each division, and also, winners of each divison enter a final battle for fun or whatever etc...

Maybe add in price for most original team build set up

or something like that, to be voted on in a seperate thread.

Get anet to at least provide some prices (cash, armbraces or whatever), get donations from Guru, and from players etc....

etc.... anyways, once exams are finished ill do it if you guys wont :P

Pauli · Dec 05, 2010, 09:30 PM // 21:30

Thank you for your suggestion, and good luck with your exams. You missed the parts of my quotes in which I explain why is it justified to spend the resources on those suggestions.

Reverend Dr · Dec 05, 2010, 10:37 PM // 22:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Missing HB

after 2008 mostly ,dealing with terrible players who quit after any lose , having to play non fun builds , to deal with luck factors ( RA/HA) , etc....

Now when were titles put in?

I rest my case. The titles did attract people to the arenas. It attracted the wrong people. In doing so it drained the fun out of the arenas and many of the right people left.

Meridon · Dec 05, 2010, 11:25 PM // 23:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reverend Dr

Now when were titles put in?

I rest my case. The titles did attract people to the arenas. It attracted the wrong people. In doing so it drained the fun out of the arenas and many of the right people left.

I support this based on my experiences in GvG. For any non-pro GvG enthusiast like me, Champ range is more of a goal itself rather than achieving the actual title. As a result, there's no people around really playing for the title, and the people who do play are much friendlier then let's say HA.

urania · Dec 06, 2010, 11:11 AM // 11:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pauli

Thank you for your suggestion, and good luck with your exams. You missed the parts of my quotes in which I explain why is it justified to spend the resources on those suggestions.

the problem isnt whether or not it is justified, but whether or not its part of their agenda and hence whether or not it is doable with the resources they are willing to spend on it.

Pauli · Dec 06, 2010, 12:26 PM // 12:26

Implementing those methods will not only be able to promote formats at GW, but also at GW2 and even other games. The testing process will contribute quite a lot to almost any project they had/have/will have. I might have suggested the methods for CA, but they could basically be used to promote other formats that may even exist in other games. In addition, there are quite a few things which already exist and therefore it's more cost effective than it seems at first. More details are found in a previous post.

urania · Dec 06, 2010, 01:07 PM // 13:07

it doesnt go both ways. they might test the things they've created for GW 2 on GW to see how they fare, but since the games are completely different it would be hard to draw any definite comparisons between the two in any case. as already mentioned, the AB test would be the least resource intense and the best possible comparison, but i honestly doubt they'll code something especially for GW so they'd use it in GW 2.

Pauli · Dec 06, 2010, 01:19 PM // 13:19

The league suggestion has nothing to do with any specific format. It's a method used to get fair and interesting fights (as much as possible). It does work both ways. There are many methods which are being used in various games to promote the popularity of specific kinds of features. Many of those methods are working well in many games for a good reason.

The titles are an excellent example. We both know GW wasn't the first game to use titles as a way to motivate people. Did it work? It sure did, even though there could be better ways (maybe not as cost effective). I could give you a plethora of examples for methods to motivate players. Gear with better stats/skin as a reward for doing this, or that, is also a great example. I sure am glad it's just about different skins at GW. I could get any stats I want on my gear when I PvP.

Meridon · Dec 06, 2010, 02:51 PM // 14:51

Pauli, I find the current thread and your suggestions a bit confusing sometimes, because they are scattered across three pages, because they have edits in them, and because at times you refer to previous posts.

I'd recommend that you should sum up all your current suggestions with the reasons you provided during the discussion in your opening post, along with the suggestions you do not support. This way it will be more clear for someone like me to analyze it and reply to them. The same goes for any Anet employee who happens to visit this thread for ideas, of course.

Pauli · Dec 06, 2010, 07:41 PM // 19:41

This is an excellent suggestion which was made in a very polite and constructive way. I've been thinking about that myself, actually. I just need to find the time to do it. It'll do it very soon by updating the original post with all the info that's scattered across the thread.

edit - It's done.

Corporeal Ghost · Dec 11, 2010, 03:23 AM // 03:23

I don't think reducing randomness is how you want to go about this. Increasing it might even be more beneficial. I'm not really sure how to elaborate on this beyond telling people to break out of the TA-style structured mentality. When constructing a build, you need to play to the strengths and synergies of the entire pool, not the four characters you happened to have rolled up or want to force to work because there's some ideal team composition you're looking for. There is no magical breakpoint for the amount of offense or defense you need beyond what is specific to each pool. Sometimes it's correct to run a double backline and sometimes it's correct to run quad melee. It's all variable based on what's available. The randomness really only changes the style of build that is dominant for a particular pool. And there is generally more than one viable build style. I also find--and this is almost certainly a preference issue--that the most fun pools are those in which the skillbars are absolutely miserable, the ones where there are something like two and a half bars you need to stretch over your four-man team...the ones that a lot of people complain the most about. You really need to focus on tactics and fundamentals at that point instead of blatantly overpowered skills. Do people genuinely not like this kind of play, or is it just a default complaint because they want to do something powerful?

The second half of that is that the more you reduce randomness, the more it becomes essentially Team Arena. If there is always a reasonable Monk bar, and always a viable defensive midliney-guy, and always a viable frontline, you're actually just going to have the same build every day with slight variation. There isn't anything inherently wrong with this setup, but it's not what Codex is trying to accomplish. The point of the format is to force adaptation via limitation.

I also find that most "bad" pools are ruined not by randomly having or not having something, but by the presence of a select few skills. Yeah, maybe 5% of the time there is some kind of unbeatable hexstack with no removal and it's pretty lame, but frankly those pools are few and far between. It's much more common to play Wounding Strike wars with no real solution other than also running Wounding Strike.

I feel like objective-based maps would go a long way toward alleviating this by forcing people to bring something versatile instead of powerful, but that's really a question of whether you want the format to promote that or not. Most of the TA population at the end was pretty dead set on just slamming into people 4v4-style (as opposed to adding objective maps), which I guess is fine. It's just a design choice.

Regarding population, the entire system is kind of stuck in a catch-22. There aren't enough people to support any kind of matchmaking system, be it ELO, league-based, or otherwise, but the new players don't really have incentive to stay as they only get matched up against (relatively) high level players and get smashed over and over, so it's not possible to hit critical mass. In order to fix this, you need a simultaneous introduction of matchmaking and an influx of people. AND you probably need to channel those people into specific timeslots unless there are a whole lot of them. The same problem is happening everywhere else; it just hasn't reached the same level yet.

I don't know how much work it would take on ANet's part to implement ATs. Months ago, I would have said this would probably have staunched the bleeding a little and kept the population from imploding, but at this point, I fear it might just be too late. Beyond that, there are a lot of additional decisions to be made that could be disastrous for the format if the wrong combination happens (as with the arena's original implementation).

blackmagick · Dec 11, 2010, 09:43 AM // 09:43

I agree with Corporea. Its alot more fun when the boards are random and don't match because then you actually have to think 'how can I make this work' and 'how can we build this into the team.'

Pauli · Dec 11, 2010, 10:53 AM // 10:53

@Corporeal Ghost

You've totally misunderstood the suggestion you commented on. Just totally misunderstood. I was merely refering to the problems warriors (for example) often have, which is 1 skill for one weapon, 2 for the other, and 2-4 on the last one. I was merely asking them to design it in a way that concentrates the skills in 1 weapon attribute every time, instead of having 1 or two skills for most (or all) weapon attributes. There'll be skills in Strength and Tactics, of course, but I wasn't refering to them.

The Warrior's issue was just an example, although most (but not all) of this problem is concentrated around the warrior. Most (not all) other classes don't suffer so much from this randomness as much as the Warrior does. Keep in mind that there's a very small amount of skills per profession, compared to it's entire pool. Therefore it's still extremely far from being TA, even if some of the patterns are going to become less random.

Some people complain because they want more powerful skills, and they pretty much say that themselves. However, few of the posters here were asking for powerful skills to be a part of the codex more frequently. It's a fact that a lot of powerful skills don't usually find their way to the busy hours' codex, compared to less powerful ones. Powerful elites are usually more rare than the ones which aren't. Nobody, or almost nobody, suggested a change regarding this fact.

You're using the term Viable in a very different way than I used it when I made my suggestion. When I was talking about being Viable, I was refering to the way it's balance in a specific codex setup. For example, WoH is a powerful healing spell, and viable damage dealers will have to be able to deal with that to be viable. However, to deal with a much weaker elite spell they could be viable with a build that has a much lower damage output. Like I already said, you totally misunderstood my suggestion.

Being able to design a versatile team build isn't only more challenging, it's also more interesting. Having variety is important when you want players to have fun in the long term. This is one of the major reasons behind that suggestion.

The League system, as well as other format promoting suggestions you find at the original post, were meant to increase the format's population. There *are* people, but there are reasons which prevent them from playing the format on a regular basis. Two major reasons being the way inexperienced teams can be steamrolled by good teams, and the fact that the long preparation is time consuming. In addition, the preparation requires good knowledge (and strategic, PvP related, thinking) which new teams aren't going to have. If nothing else, those systems could be used to promote other formats. However, GvG and HA are still considerably more complex than CA/TA and even just their basic design (including the 8 players' requirement) is enough to repel quite a few inexperienced players.

@Blackmagick

Please read the above reply to Corporeal Ghost. Both you and him have totally misunderstood my suggestion.

Sirius Bsns · Dec 11, 2010, 06:03 PM // 18:03

If Codex were turned into kind of like a "meta" arena whereby they have the most optimal builds only, then CA would be less bad, and I'd probably play in it. Fixed builds so that the only thing separating every player is their level of skill. This arena would definitely become the best place for all new comers to learn the PvP basics because only the most optimized builds can ever be used, and nothing else! Yes, it'd take away the freedom of using your own build, but lets face it, most of the builds newbies use aren't that great anyway... So, why not force them to use the most optimized builds?

Missing HB · Dec 11, 2010, 06:10 PM // 18:10

You do mean make like costume brawl i guess , and builds would still change every day. But then , it might be hard to code , since they would have to optimize a special build for EVERY random pool....
However , that's a good idea aswell , but just so we see , there are plenty of good solutions but they just won't do anything , since they don't care at all...

Pauli · Dec 11, 2010, 06:48 PM // 18:48

I offered fixed bars for the lowest league, called Inexperienced. There's no preparation time spent just to design your bar because it's fixed, and it's cost effective because it already exists. There could be different variation according to the amount of resources Anet will actually invest on this project. However, it won't be implemented any time soon so it's quite hard to tell.

There are several, and serious, problems with the suggestion to turn CA into a place with the best builds only. First of all, the whole format will be extremely stale if it's not implemented for the lowest league only. You'll need to implement the League System for that, though. Secondly, builds are designed for a very specific setup. When you face another setup/context those builds won't be as optimal. Last, but not least, who's the one who decides which builds are optimal? You know the meta (general PvP meta) would never change if nobody ever found out that there's room for improvement and tried something different. The only exceptions are meta changes which always happen after a skill update.

blackmagick · Dec 12, 2010, 06:41 AM // 06:41

@Pauli
I understand what you mean about the weapons skills. Were it may force some one to use an axe over a hammer just because there is only one hammer skill. I was just agreeing on the fact that CA being random is what makes it fun. Although Sirius had a good point with the meta arena.

Corporeal Ghost · Dec 12, 2010, 07:58 AM // 07:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pauli

@Corporeal GhostI was merely refering to the problems warriors (for example) often have, which is 1 skill for one weapon, 2 for the other, and 2-4 on the last one. I was merely asking them to design it in a way that concentrates the skills in 1 weapon attribute every time, instead of having 1 or two skills for most (or all) weapon attributes.

This is a large part of why codex teambuilding is so skill-testing. The warrior builds we ran were often two or three weapon types, and were for the most part much more effective than what the masses (and I use that term extremely loosely in regard to codex) were running. The same logic applies across other classes, though it is less prevalent. We often ran the most powerful ele bar forgoing energy skills entirely, or ran an unspecced Deep Freeze on a random caster that couldn't support the energy. If you reduce the randomness by increasing skill density within an attribute, you complete eliminate this aspect of building, and even begin to approach what will resemble pre-made bars.

I also want to differentiate between powerful skills and powerful bars. There are skills that should probably be banned because they're too powerful and all matches revolve around them--for example, Wounding Strike. But generally when I'm talking about "doing something powerful" above, I'm looking at skillbars or team compositions. There is a world of difference between a set of four powerful elites and four fully-synergistic bars without any filler skills on them, even if they aren't headlined by anything super-powerful in its own right. The latter is what I think people are claiming to want in the format, but it's actually pretty close to playing TA. In general, the worse the skill pool is, the more tactical decisions matter, and the less like TA the arena is.

We use the term viable in the same sense. People are just really bad at playing, supporting, and often building melee bars.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pauli

There *are* people, but there are reasons which prevent them from playing the format on a regular basis. Two major reasons being the way inexperienced teams can be steamrolled by good teams(...)

Implementing leagues doesn't fix this unless you add a ton more people. It's been a long time since I've seen more than three total teams on a non-quest day, and that's pretty rare. If one of those teams is kinda bad and the other is pretty good, right now they can play a few matches. In the proposed system, without injecting a ton of people, they can't even enter a match.

The key is that there aren't enough people. A matchmaking system that was in place from day one would have helped keep the format populated, but if there aren't enough people to provide at least one game per league during peak hours, it's going to lead to fewer games, not more.

Pauli · Dec 12, 2010, 09:26 AM // 09:26

@blackmagic

Which point does he have about the meta?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corporeal Ghost

This.... melee bars.

First of all there are no masses except quest days. Secondly, can you be sure that switching between 3 weapons, or even 2, just for some really bad skills, was a better choice than what other professions had for that codex? A test of skill is also about choices. For example: Is the Warrior the best choices considering this codex, or is the Ranger/Paragon/etc better for the same purpose?

Many Warrior weapon skills are very situational and require at least a decent amount of attribute points to be effective. Swapping weapons takes it's time and spreading yourself across too many attributes is a great way to reduce your efficiency in so many cases. When you spend this extra time (swapping) you lose attacking time, which translates directly to adrenaline and damage. It also makes you very predictable if one of a specific weapon skills is very important (like Hammer for KD).

Here's a very representing example: Axe Mastery has something like Axe Twist and Disrupting Chop; Hammer Mastery has Fierce Blow and Auspicious Blow; Sword Mastery has Quivering Blade, Pure Strike and Savage Slash. Many codex setups went along those lines. Will you not be very predictable when you swap to an axe to rupt, or to a sword to try to daze a moving target? It is a test of skill to spread yourself across too many attributes for those skills? Or will the real test be about learning how to choose another profession to get the same results or even much much better ones?

Not even once, during the days I've been at CA, have the Ele been one of the best choices out there. I was always hoped one of our opposing is going to use one. They usually have severe mana issues because they lack attunement and/or those can be removed easily, very easily interrupted and it's rare to have less than 1 rupt (usually it's 2, more often even 3-4), and hexes can be at least decently remove (sometimes through some team work) in many codex setups. I can't remember even a single decent fire Ele build compared to any other damage alternative there was in each and every codex setup I've been to.

Battles are more tactical when they're more evenly matched and when the combat's pace isn't too fast. GvG is an excellent example of a battles which are a lot more slow paced than not. GvG is tactical because you have a lot of time to think. Of course there'll always be battles in which one team tramples another, and that is usually a match between teams of very different qualities, but such things happen everywhere.

Support can really be limited when you barely have relevant skills. In addition, melee isn't always the answer. When you can't have the required support, is it really wise to choose a profession which requires a lot of support? Here are two examples:

- There was a codex in which there was insufficient condition removal, and the team against us had it's second melee (Warrior, in this case) crippled all the time. My team went for just one melee to begin with, and the victories were abundant with no losses at all, after the initial 3 matches we needed to get used to our bars.

- There was a codex in which you could easily keep a Ward Against Foes and Ward Against Melee all the time, or almost all the time (it was extremely easy to keep at least 1 running). Guess how well could opposing melee professions do against us? With a 40/40 (if it was even needed), and other techniques, you could easily get at least one ward in. Btw, the one who was casting the wards wasn't even an Ele. During that Codex we lost twice when getting used to the bars, and after that didn't lose a single match.

Conclusion: Learn the codex setup and use it in the best way. Being overzealous about melees, with all their disadvantages, is far from always being the best ways. So yes, it's a test of skill, and learning what really is best.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corporeal Ghost

Implementing... not more.

Indeed 3 teams is usually the max during non quest days, and one team is usually very bad indeed. Too bad the other team is usually just a little decent, and not more. It's not easy finding good teams. That's also why I'm playing less lately. You work so hard preparing yourself only to have no good team to fight against. You just beat the decent team after a few battles in which you get used to the bars, and that's it.

Quest days prove there's enough population and that they only need to be motivated. During quest days you also see how many bad teams you face (way too many). Obviously they're demotivated when being trampled so often, but if they faced other teams of their level they'd be glad to give it another shot. There are more popular formats, but those are the formats in which you almost never find good PvPers. That said, it's obvious the people are there. Motivate them, and you'll be able to see them more often elsewhere. There are PvP formats (of lesser average quality) which are far more popular than CA, HA and GvG, don't forget that.

Teams give up very quickly when they know they will most likely lose. That's the reason bad teams at CA don't stick around as long as many better teams. Give them a better chance and they'll stick around much more. On top of it, the League System will be a great way to get random people when you don't have enough. Throw in those fixed bars (for the Inexperienced league) for good measure, and you're going to have far more motivation than there's now, with people sticking around much longer. League symbols are better than titles. Titles are all about experienced, which could be a fake one, but League symbols are all about current proved quality.