Curse

Gosu · May 06, 2007, 01:36 PM // 13:36

Thanks for making this post Blame the Monk, this is one of the main questions that I have been pondering for some time.

I had really hoped when Billard went to the Arena net HQ that he would ask my question about why HvH was getting this much attention, when no one really wanted it in the first place especially since more dynamic arenas such as HA or TA deserved it more at the time.

But alas.......

I myself don't have a problem with HvH concept itself, the problem I have is with A-net pushing it like they have putting it on comparable levels with GvG I think is a bit premature.

They should have opened it to the public first, gauged the community reaction, and then decide from that whether to give it the type of promotion it has been getting.

I would hazard a guess and suspect you ask most pvp players where they want A-net to focus most of their time I doubt you would hear them cry for more pvp arenas but rather to exponentially improve the arenas we already have. I can’t speak for the community but I would rather have quality over quantity any day.

Fewer arenas that are of a great quality than a higher number of arenas that are complete nonsense.

Please A-net try to improve TA you don't understand how badly I want to see that Arena improved why do you neglect that arena like it's the unwanted child you would rather forget about.

If you guys just sat down with your think tanks and the community I know that would be the one arena to rival GvG in this game.

urania · May 06, 2007, 08:00 PM // 20:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gosu

Please A-net try to improve TA you don't understand how badly I want to see that Arena improved why do you neglect that arena like it's the unwanted child you would rather forget about.

If you guys just sat down with your think tanks and the community I know that would be the one arena to rival GvG in this game.

nice to see i'm not the only one thinking like that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by unmatchedfury

statement fixed.

I disliked the amount of gimmicks there where in HB. Due to the fact that IM not 2x more skilled than most other players chances are if i played an equally skilled player who used a gimmick build I would lose. THis i found frustrating and I havn't bothered to HB lately.

u should unfix it.

they buffed several features of HvH and are giving it almost as much attention as gvg, as many others have mentioned. I hardly think it deserves half of it.

heroes are controllable in a way that u can easily make them bond/use easy combination of skills with only slight manipulation...expecting that they will execute a perfectly timed spike with evisc+axe rake+exe is ridiculous....AI excells at automatic things like removing hexes/conds in an instant (and i mean instant. right when u get the cond up on somebody it gets removed in the next 3/4 of a second..) )and especially at interrupting.

urania · May 06, 2007, 08:21 PM // 20:21

sorry for double post.

Symbol · May 06, 2007, 08:52 PM // 20:52

If A.net really wants a casual PvP experience that doesn't suck, they only need to make two changes to RA:

1) If a team doesn't have a full complement of players before the next match WAIT until one can be found.

2) Make an attempt to match teams with similar numbers of wins. The nature of the game type means that successful teams will play more matches. This means that starting out the gate with a fresh team you're more than likely to face a good team. It is absolutely no fun to play against a team with a competent monk, a couple of good damage templates (cripslash, moebius sin, shock axe, melandru derv, whatever) and some form of support/shutdown (hexer, bsurge ele, dom mesmer) with your team of firestorm warriors and Me/Mo smiters.

RA is the ultimate "pick up and play gametype". A little effort into making it something other than the electronic equivalent of ramming your face into the wall repeatedly would be nice, and as a bonus you'd probably get an upsurge of people wanting to play PvP.

Seamus Finn · May 06, 2007, 10:42 PM // 22:42

Honestly, I think Blame the Monks pointed at probably the best way to light up the pvp population: make it a gold mine. Literally.

Also, HvH would probably be great with 4 players instead of heros. Basically, TA gets stale because it can be buildwars at its worst. No objective other than killing the other guy can turn into rock, paper, scissors too fast. HvH style play seems like a decent fix to this problem since it adds alternate objectives.

Mourne · May 06, 2007, 11:52 PM // 23:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seamus Finn

Honestly, I think Blame the Monks pointed at probably the best way to light up the pvp population: make it a gold mine. Literally.

Also, HvH would probably be great with 4 players instead of heros. Basically, TA gets stale because it can be buildwars at its worst. No objective other than killing the other guy can turn into rock, paper, scissors too fast. HvH style play seems like a decent fix to this problem since it adds alternate objectives.

Why does everyone say TA can be buildwars. Have you ever ran your own build? I know I have and a hell of alot. We usually end up beating whatever the fotm is, and usually that was sitting on the 2 monk/2 thumper for a while, and it's kinda of jumping around atm. If you are running a competant team that knows what they are doing in thier position, then you shouldn't have to worry about other builds, you should have to worry about that one slip-up that lost you the game or barely won it for you.

Either way, I have personally been against HvH from the beginning just because of the simple fact Anet said this game is about "teamwork". It just isn't fun to run around from shrine to shrine with little or no killing.

Lodurr · May 07, 2007, 12:13 AM // 00:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seamus Finn

Also, HvH would probably be great with 4 players instead of heros. Basically, TA gets stale because it can be buildwars at its worst. No objective other than killing the other guy can turn into rock, paper, scissors too fast. HvH style play seems like a decent fix to this problem since it adds alternate objectives.

That's a great idea. I can't stand playing with or against heroes in PvP, and TA's been boring for a long time.

I think it's a corporate culture issue where new ideas need to succeed and old ideas or products are completely ignored. Or maybe Izzy's just being stubborn.

Either way, I would love TA with a ladder and different objectives, making it GvG "lite" where GvGers can practice their field movement and communication. No one can mourn the loss of the current TA when there's basically never more than 1 district with people in it. It couldn't get much less popular.

Seamus Finn · May 07, 2007, 12:46 AM // 00:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mourne

Why does everyone say TA can be buildwars. Have you ever ran your own build? .

No, I have never run my own TA build. I copy them from obs mode. Anyhow, the reason why TA can become buildwars so quickly is that the objective is simply to kill the other team. Combine this with the fact that you have 21-24 skills to deal with whatever an enemy might throw at you means that there really isn't a viable way to play in a balanced manner. And unlike GvG where you can play the morale/npc game to try and deal with a team that has hopelessly outbuilt you, with TA it's more like hope the other guys don't know what they are doing and capitalize on a terrible play. Since this is the state with a lot of TA, the problem apparently isn't so noticeable to some.

Dave Havok · May 07, 2007, 01:04 AM // 01:04

The game type has many things going for it.

What I admire most about it is the fact that you can do it whenever you want, and you don't need to prepare. In GvG it is rare that you find 8 people that are all on your playing level, and scheduling is hard and inconvenient. While I love GvG, the constant e-drama and whining can get extremely annoying and unfufilling. After my guild disbanded, I was to the point where I would rather be able to play whenever I wanted and avoid the drama involved in GvG.

Team Arenas is quite boring as well. It is all too easy to grab a Backbreaker Warrior, two ancestors rage RT's, and a ZB monk to farm 5 glad points.

While Hero Battles is far from the 5v5 (All Physical Characters) format that I have been wanting, it is a step in the right direction. I agree with Seamus in that HvH would be pretty awesome with 4 Human players instead. I know it gets hard to invent new PvP types when your game is basically at the end of its development, but it would be an answer to our prayers, and I think many of the people losing touch with them game would come back for a try at something like that.

Greedy Gus · May 07, 2007, 04:27 AM // 04:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoxBat

Some AI improvements would help like better resistance to ganking when running to a flag, but the biggest thing required is not better AI, but better micro controls.

QFT

12345

=DNC=Trucker · May 07, 2007, 05:03 AM // 05:03

I like hero battles but I agree they are taking too much attention from developers.

suiraCLAW · May 07, 2007, 02:40 PM // 14:40

Quote:

Also, HvH would probably be great with 4 players instead of heros.

That would require such an insane amount of coordination between the players that 90% of the whole pvp player base wouldn't play it.

And that's exactly why I would like it

.

Still, I'd rather have an "exclusive" AB where you can enter with guild teams of 12 people.

Byron · May 07, 2007, 04:21 PM // 16:21

HvH is sincerely dumb. Heroes are sincerely dumb. The game was meant to be a cooperative team-based competition. HvH revolves around not skill or even preparation, but who can manipulate the AI more effectively. That's the extent of my opinion. I think a 1v1 arena would have been more interesting.

Furthermore, TA is not build wars any more than the rest of the game is. If you run headlong into wanderlust spammers, you deserve to lose. The team that can bring an adaptable build and react to situations as they arise will win, where all other factors are equal. TA is a much better measure of the skill of a team than, say, HA, because it's straight combat. No bloody altar or capture points. I've gone into TA with builds that should not have worked (eg 3 burning arrows), and came out with glad points only because our team was better at the game.

Seamus Finn · May 07, 2007, 06:31 PM // 18:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Byron

Furthermore, TA is not build wars any more than the rest of the game is. If you run headlong into wanderlust spammers, you deserve to lose. The team that can bring an adaptable build and react to situations as they arise will win, where all other factors are equal.

So 4v4 isn't really build wars because you don't have to charge into wanderlust? Is this really the best example you can give of player skill prevailing over build wars?

A max of 24 possible skills really does limit the possibility of having a truly "balanced" build and even then, in 8v8s balanced builds would lose a lot more than they do if their only option was to kill the other team whose build is far more narrow and potent in a straight up fight. Don't get me wrong, I like TA for the aspect of improving individual play, but to say it isn't an arena that showcases build wars more than most is just wrong. Remember, you only have to build to kill the other guys(I don't think making a priest ganker is really worth addressing), and once you realize the other guys' build happens to have strong counters for your method of killing them and in 24 slots(less actually) you couldn't fit in as many hex counters as you'd have liked, well the game was over before it started eh? The fact that there is little incentive to win just lowers the quality of players and beating a group that has you outbuilt seems a lot easier than it should be because, quite frankly, a great deal of TA players are bad. The gimmick guys in 8v8 have improved a lot more than the 4v4 gimmick guys and that's the only way I am able to see how someone could agree with this kind of post.

This was all off-topic. Sorry.

Wasteland Squidget · May 07, 2007, 08:38 PM // 20:38

Why is 'balanced' something to strive for in 4v4 play? Balanced builds are about having a multi-dimensional offense, so your team can change tactics if things aren't going your way. If the enemy has mass pressure defenses, you can still spike. If your spikes aren't working, you can still split. A balanced build allows you to threaten the enemy team in many ways

TA only offers two ways to kill things. You either put short-term shutdown on the enemy monk (KDs, Blackout, whatever) and kill in the intervening time, or you dish out so much spread damage that the monk can't keep up with it. Even the more gimmicky TA builds are usually capable of offense in both forms. So what is there about a balanced build that makes it more interesting than a gimmick in TA?

Seamus Finn · May 07, 2007, 09:20 PM // 21:20

Since TA success is based on win streaks, I would think the great "balance" would be more about disruptive and defensive capabilities. Fighting a Ranger condi-based pressure build and a hex-based pressure build would require rather different defensive tools and if the players were of relatively equal skill the guy trying to play something balanced would almost definately lose to one of these two builds. Since you want 10 wins in a row to walk away with something(again the incentive in TA is admittedly rather poor), you really don't want that kind of outcome. Balanced builds that contain multiple defensive and offensive options, I believe, are mostly created in hopes of eliminating "build wars" matchups. The more gimmicky builds just clash and one will usually wipe quite quickly(First map in HvH is a fair comparison in this regard). As I said before, this is all mostly theorycraft since TA just doesn't have enough competitive players to matter, but if it did, you would have more players complaining about it being buildwars.

The other rather ridiculous thing about it is how skills scale down to 4v4. My guild was able to farm many a glad point during a double weekend with a build that was quite versatile, but its success hinged largely on how overpowered an offering of spirit Resto/Channeling Rit can be in a small arena. He basically had almost every utility in the game you could hope for. But I more consider this a problem of TA than a solution.

urania · May 07, 2007, 09:37 PM // 21:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wasteland Squidget

Why is 'balanced' something to strive for in 4v4 play? Balanced builds are about having a multi-dimensional offense, so your team can change tactics if things aren't going your way. If the enemy has mass pressure defenses, you can still spike. If your spikes aren't working, you can still split. A balanced build allows you to threaten the enemy team in many ways

TA only offers two ways to kill things. You either put short-term shutdown on the enemy monk (KDs, Blackout, whatever) and kill in the intervening time, or you dish out so much spread damage that the monk can't keep up with it. Even the more gimmicky TA builds are usually capable of offense in both forms. So what is there about a balanced build that makes it more interesting than a gimmick in TA?

because it takes more skills and is more rewarding than, for example, outhexing the opponent?

because it can (or should be able to) counter almost anything? from rit and nec spam to heavy cond or melee pressure.
though the amount of skills it requires is far greater than an easy-to-play and yet effective gimmick does, so many players prefer to choose the latter.
having no ench removal, no interrupts or no snares in your team is sth one should avoid...at all costs. and most of the gimmicks only have one of those, if any at all.

JoeKnowMo · May 07, 2007, 09:57 PM // 21:57

The NBA-WNBA analogy in the OP is apt. Sure, the WNBA has its fans but they are vastly outnumbered by NBA fans. Thankfully, the NBA is capable of tinkering with its own rules to reduce degenerate tactics/play (allowing zone defenses, the handcheck rule, etc.) while promoting the WNBA simultaneously. Not so in the case of Anet and GvG/HvH.

I would rather have seen tweaks to FA, AB, RA, TA, HA, and GvG than all this effort Anet has put into HvH.

Cass · May 12, 2007, 02:30 PM // 14:30

Never liked the tendency of Anet to create more and more 'low-level' PvP arenas. I also don't like the solo guy + bots setup, which is also dominant in PvE where players are spread too thin.

Focus on GvG, HA, R/TA would be preferable.

Clusmas · May 13, 2007, 02:26 AM // 02:26

Quote:

HvH: Why is anet pushing it so hard, and has it worked?

Because someone read that article that criticises grind in WoW and praises the player skill involved in Street Fighter's 1v1.

I think they missed the point... Completely.

Here's a link to said article for those that haven't read it.