Curse

Foe · Jan 21, 2010, 02:32 AM // 02:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Div

Anet just needs to bring in 1v1 arenas. Any profession, any skill set. I'm sure it'll be the most popular by far.

anyone notice how the only place 1v1 pops up outside of inter-guild is american districts RA. 2 Warriors with amazing pve names like Duke Wellington or Percey Lightbringer arguing over rebirth turns into a 1v1 anything goes test of Guild Wars might. lol !

Page Down Warhammer · Jan 21, 2010, 04:22 AM // 04:22

What about something like a hero 3v3?
At the beginning of NF and EOTN they show us how to flag our heroes without being on the battlefield, why not have some set up like that. (Of course that would probably turn into a battle of who could macro their keys the best.)

Nature Wraith · Jan 21, 2010, 05:20 AM // 05:20

I want team arenas.

The Arching Healer · Jan 21, 2010, 01:39 PM // 13:39

I want hero baddles.

Ariena Najea · Jan 21, 2010, 10:10 PM // 22:10

Discussion for a replacement or supplemental format should be in a new thread.

Regulus X · Jan 24, 2010, 02:59 AM // 02:59

Codex is dedd. I go there occasionally to remind them of it's suck. It was implimented terribly; elementalists but no attunements, melee but no deepwounds or IAS/IMS, Monks but no power heals, condition removal or guardian, etc..

I think 1v1 would be a total failure simply because there is no possible way to do it without changing certain skills so that they won't be insanely OP'd vs others (i.e.: Defy Pain war's with hexes and self-heals, or anything of its likeness).

They could've just fixed TA/HB, but it'd be too much coding for them, and they just don't have the man power to deal with those two arenas.. Hence their removal!

*lemming* · Jan 24, 2010, 04:20 AM // 04:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regulus X

Codex is dedd. I go there occasionally to remind them of it's suck. It was implimented terribly; elementalists but no attunements, melee but no deepwounds or IAS/IMS, Monks but no power heals, condition removal or guardian, etc..

Real sealed deck played just like that. The only difference that made Codex profoundly unfun to play is that defensive skills can be brought in duplicate.

Revelations · Jan 24, 2010, 04:41 AM // 04:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by lemming

Real sealed deck played just like that. The only difference that made Codex profoundly unfun to play is that defensive skills can be brought in duplicate.

That is certainly the major failing of the arena.

Even if you remove that functionality though, you still get RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GOers playing hyperdefense with dual backline and the minimum required offense to score a kill in 8 minutes. Partly a symptom of matches being consecutive based, partly player mentality. Polly and co. could tell you more, but I doubt that either aspect is going to change.

IMMORTAlMITCH · Jan 25, 2010, 11:57 AM // 11:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by lemming

Real sealed deck played just like that. The only difference that made Codex profoundly unfun to play is that defensive skills can be brought in duplicate.

Not like you ever played Codex, but yeah sometimes this is the case, usually bigger problems are lack of opponents and Weapon of Remedy/Xinrae's Weapon though.

TheHaxor · Jan 25, 2010, 03:34 PM // 15:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by IMMORTAlMITCH

Codex arena is actually pretty crowded on zquest days, it's pretty dead on other days though, anyway the problems with CA are the same problems with all of GW PvP, lack of population.

To a point, Mitch is exactly right on. Actually, it's difficult to completely determine the exact cause as to why the Codex Arena is not a successful format, but population is definitely a contributing factor. I've seen the same issue within every game I've ever played. It appears the process is speeding up, but I think that has more to do with the vast variety of similar titles available to the consumer. Games simply run their course and it's a process that can't be stopped.

I began playing both Counter-Strike and Ultima Online at a young age. Both of these titles were revolutionary within their genres and both eventually ran their course (although both are still technically alive, for all intents and purposes they are dead). It's not complicated really to understand why games eventually run their course and it starts with a contradiction. A close look at these games reveals the mechanics behind the process.

On one side, if you change the game you always alienate a certain population of the playerbase. The new players you generate by the changes are never enough to balance out the loss in the existing playerbase. Why is this the case? Well, that's an even more complicated discussion that I will stay away from. My intuition is that its a blend of a variety of different factors.

On the other side of the issue, if you never change the game it grows stagnant and people will quit anyway. This can be evidenced by formats that never change and deteriorate over time. The question is: what can a developer do to make everyone happy?

The answer to that question really is nothing. Decisions can be made that can slow down the inevitable death, but there is nothing that can be done to stop the process. Obviously, well thought-out decisions are the ones that will have any sort of impact on the process (there has been severe lack of these in this game).

Why is all this relevant to this discussion? The answer is because this failure has necessarily nothing to do with the format of Codex Arena. The format was not the only reason it was doomed for failure, if it was a reason at all. It was a new format implemented into a game with a dwindling PvP community. The decision to remove HB and TA was going to inevitably alienate another population of the playerbase. The implementation was not going to be able to generate enough new players to balance out the loss. This is something the "I told you so" people have failed to recognize.

urania · Jan 25, 2010, 11:13 PM // 23:13

surprising how chess never gets old, eh.

TheHaxor · Jan 25, 2010, 11:55 PM // 23:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by urania

surprising how chess never gets old, eh.

Chess doesn't have to deal with "new and exciting" clones popping up on a monthly basis. It also doesn't have to deal with a mostly ADHD playerbase.

Corporeal Ghost · Jan 26, 2010, 12:34 PM // 12:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Revelations

Four-copies-of-<Insert broken shit here> day really doesn't help it. Allowing duplicate copies of skills was both a design flaw, and a major shortcut. Also, though not entirely symptomatic of codex alone, dervishes.

I should have clarified that I meant the only problem people have with it conceptually. We all know the implementation was terrible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by IMMORTAlMITCH

Not like you ever played Codex, but yeah sometimes this is the case, usually bigger problems are lack of opponents and Weapon of Remedy/Xinrae's Weapon though.

Lack of opponents is a symptom, not the problem. At this point, it's a self-perpetuating symptom/problem hybrid, I guess, but it started because of other faults.

Remedy and Xinrae are pretty trash, agreed. I'd rather play against that than Protector's Defense in triplicate, though. Plus Xinrae/Remedy is only a problem if a medium-strong Monk bar also exists, whereas Protector's Defense ruins every single day it's a part of. Armor of Sanctity is similar, but not quite as bad. That and ultimately, about 95% of the people with Xinrae/Remedy + Monk are PvE-level horrible, and you can use this fact to either shut it down or blow them up (skills permitting).

Quote:

Originally Posted by urania

surprising how chess never gets old, eh.

Oh? Bobby Fischer would tell you otherwise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheHaxor

Chess doesn't have to deal with "new and exciting" clones popping up on a monthly basis.

Arguably, neither does Guild Wars. I have not put a whole lot of effort into finding a replacement, but I haven't yet seen anything that remotely resembles it in structure. And the tactical depth--at least, the potential tactical depth--is completely unheard of in the parent genre.

On a somewhat unrelated note, Codex has revived my infatuation with Gale. You could teach a class on how well-designed that skill is. ANet should buff it. Seriously.

TheHaxor · Jan 26, 2010, 02:48 PM // 14:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corporeal Ghost

Oh? Bobby Fischer would tell you otherwise.

The statement you quoted was more of a "stood the test of time" statement than what you perceived it as.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corporeal Ghost

Arguably, neither does Guild Wars. I have not put a whole lot of effort into finding a replacement, but I haven't yet seen anything that remotely resembles it in structure. And the tactical depth--at least, the potential tactical depth--is completely unheard of in the parent genre.

I would say nearly every game in existence is unique in some respects, but that doesn't mean they don't contain many similar aspects. You're right in that nothing does it quite like Guild Wars, but you can say that about any game.

FoxBat · Jan 26, 2010, 03:21 PM // 15:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheHaxor

You're right in that nothing does it quite like Guild Wars, but you can say that about any game.

I'm pretty sure people bored of counterstrike can try modern warfare, or those tired of starcraft can fire up dawn of war or supreme commander. Hell people tired of "defense of the ancients" maps even have several options now like demigod and league of legends.

If you want to play anything like GW GvG or HA, there are no other options.

TheHaxor · Jan 26, 2010, 06:29 PM // 18:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoxBat

If you want to play anything like GW GvG or HA, there are no other options.

Team based play that requires one to complete a variety of different objectives as win conditions is hardly a unique concept.

Ariena Najea · Jan 27, 2010, 01:43 AM // 01:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheHaxor

Team based play that requires one to complete a variety of different objectives as win conditions is hardly a unique concept.

This is true, but Guild Wars gameplay is unique within the realm of MMOs. The base objectives of the formats are simple and certainly not unique, those being basic destruction of the other team (Annihilation), the same with periodic respawning (Priest Annihilation), King of the Hill (self-explanatory), Regional dominance (Capture Points), and lastly competitive races (Relic Runs). The last of these is often considered to be a new and innovative format, however, I believe it can be likened to prior formats such as Mario Kart races, in which players compete to reach a goal using items (similar to skills) both offensively and defensively in order to reach the goal (akin to running Relics) before the other teams.

Regardless, Codex in principle is a well designed format. There is really no substitute for Codex in Guild Wars, since no other format readily changes itself and the strategy required. Stating that some builds and strategies work better than others regularly in Codex is entirely true, although you can say that for nearly all PvP formats. Although the implementation is different, you can utilize Snares, Blocking skills, Knockdowns, etc effectively regardless of where you are.

IMMORTAlMITCH · Jan 27, 2010, 11:26 AM // 11:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corporeal Ghost

Plus Xinrae/Remedy is only a problem if a medium-strong Monk bar also exists.

Actually that's very untrue, it's the most problematic when monk bars are pretty mediocre/bad, there haven't been very many days where you could get away with not running a monk and at least if you have a strong monk bar it's possible to stand up to a team with a monk + wor/xinrae rit, if not you'll die from random wor/xinrae damage before you can get any pressure going.

Revelations · Jan 27, 2010, 01:11 PM // 13:11

I'm going to agree with Vick on this one. Decent monk bar + XW/WoR give a team just enough defense to stay up almost indefinitely unless strong disruption is present or dual backline team is bad. It also pushes their damage just into the kill-threat region over a long period of time, all up making for stagnant matches which often don't end for 6-7 minutes, if that. Basically, a decent monk bar is how a XW/WoR + Monk backline stays up long enough to eventually pressure you out.

On a bad monk day you just roll three offensive characters plus your own copy of XW/WoR and steamroll the terribad RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GOers who try and field the bad monk bar as well.

Also, there's been plenty of days when running without a backline has been perfectly viable. Though somewhat risky if aiming for streaks, it makes for a shitload more fun matches. Even despite this we usually only lose our streaks to NOP x 30 when running without backline. It's pretty funny when teams try and buildwars it over and over by adding more defense each time they enter.

Corporeal Ghost · Jan 28, 2010, 10:18 AM // 10:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by IMMORTAlMITCH

Actually that's very untrue, it's the most problematic when monk bars are pretty mediocre/bad, there haven't been very many days where you could get away with not running a monk and at least if you have a strong monk bar it's possible to stand up to a team with a monk + wor/xinrae rit, if not you'll die from random wor/xinrae damage before you can get any pressure going.

I guess this is valid if your aim in codex is long streaks. Our goal is matches that end in less than 4 minutes, though. I do not exaggerate when I tell you that we routinely face (for example) Rt + Mo + Signet of Midnight/Plague Touch + linebacking hammer. While I agree that these teams are pretty easy to beat if you don't mind playing for 8 minutes, that's not really why we log into codex. We would much rather go 3-1 over a ten minute span (while playing a build we consider fun) than keep our streak going but only extend it by a single win.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheHaxor

Team based play that requires one to complete a variety of different objectives as win conditions is hardly a unique concept.

No it isn't; it's a unique implementation. Go and checkers (there are much better games than checkers to list here, but most people have not heard of them--like Quarto) are similar concepts. Strategic (lolcheckers) gameplay with perfect information, zero luck involved, and extremely simplistic rules. And yet they play completely differently. Most go players won't touch checkers with a ten foot pole. Two games in the same incredibly broad genre are not the same. Ultimately, Guild Wars has no replacement, which is why we're still here. The closest thing I've seen to GvG is DotA, which plays like a cheap imitation (Tides of Blood is actually closer, but I doubt anyone here has heard of it.). Plus I haven't been able to take DotA seriously since Guinsoo destroyed it sometime around 2004.