Curse

JR · Mar 28, 2006, 04:26 PM // 16:26

I took part in dozens of battles over the weekend, and very much enjoyed them. However I couldn't help wondering why we weren't allowed to form 12 man groups to enter from our Guild Hall. This is something I would very much like to see in Factions. At the moment for serious PvP players, it seems to be a bit of light fun that could get tiring in the long run. If you then add the ability to enter as a guild, it suddenly becomes a whole lot more of a complex and tactical affair.

- You can put together twelve man builds, with seperate squads for taking certain points. Making the build alone would be a tremendously interesting for someone like me, executing it even more so.

- You could communicate much more easily with team mates via voice comms, encouraging more intelligent and strategic play.

- It would help to expand guild based combat away from purely GvG, attracting more people to join PvP guilds.

At the moment you get thrown in with eight other people, whom you may quite often find are offensive, ignorant... or whatever else. And to be honest for players who are serious about PvP it is annoying as hell to be holding your own, but to ultimately lose because the rest of your team was running around like headless chickens.

At one point over the weekend we had two groups forming for an Alliance Battle, and by pure coincidence we ended up going in at the same time. Having eight of us playing on vent together was great fun, as it usually is in GvG, it was frustrating however that we couldn't communicate easily with the remaining four.

If this system was put in place, there would be a number of options. You could either make it like a Guild Battle, where by you enter and then wait for another Guild to enter. Seperated from the usual random group variation.

Alternatively, you could just let the Guilds duke it out with everyone else, even put the matches on observer mode much like tombs. This I think would be a great idea. Random players would get to play against Guilds that were just having a bit of a break from ladder grinding, and probably learn from it. Not to mention the sense of acheivement you would get, if you did manage to beat a ranked guild with a pug group.

At the moment organised PvP consists of GvG, HA, and TA. Out of the three only GvG really appeals strongly to me. HA is a mess of horrible gimmick builds, badly designed maps, and arrogant scrubs. TA is actually quite good fun, but the map and team sizes limit the strategy in it. GvG is awesome, no complaints at all. The problem is you can eventually burn yourself out grinding the ladder; every game you play is a stress because the win or loss has a definate impact. Not that it makes it less fun, but it would be damn nice to have an alternative to blow off some steam once in a while. I think the Alliance Battles are just about perfect for this.

Opinions?

wheel · Mar 28, 2006, 04:34 PM // 16:34

I don't necessarily think that full 12 man guild groups should be able to go in unless there's a separate rated Alliance Battle on a neutral battlefield mechanism built in, because it would simply be boring for both sides, those winning and those being thrashed. I do, however, think that players should not be able to join the mission without being in a party. Randos are usually on a much lower calibur than those who are able to join a party, and they usually lower the quality of the play of their team substantially, as well as they're more likely to leave when losing by a small amount early on in the match. It just doesn't seem like Random Arena is a good mechanic for the Alliance battles at all.

What I would love to see would be forced teams of 4, but no guild groups, and have integrated voice communication so that all 4 teams would be on vent or whatever and be able to talk to each other quickly and easily.

Integrated Voice Communication would improve the quality of PvP play drastically in this game, IMO. Especially in Random Arena.

JR · Mar 28, 2006, 04:46 PM // 16:46

I think inbuilt voice communcation would end up like observer chat; turned off. If you throw a bunch of teenage gamers into a voice chat together and all hell is going to break out.

icemonkey · Mar 28, 2006, 05:00 PM // 17:00

I see both sides of this issue. From one perspective i was done with the random battles after 2, im not playing with a bunch of random peopel unless I have 0 expectations of anything, for example PvE. But, if you have 12v12 teams expect to see one team of heal party spammers and orders spammers hanging back at res shrine and two ranger spike squads running out and spiking everything in down 2 targets at a time. And more similar ideas. There will be 2 kill squads supported from basically across the world in a protected area.

But as most poeple seem to agree if it is totally random anyone that is serious is not interested. I think the best bet is what hweel suggested, 4 random teams but with voice chat integrated. Then you could not set up some super spike team, or some party spam group. You would have to make a completely self sufficient 4 man team taht would end up with 2 other 4 man teams and then all the teams would work together. That is the ideal i think and a reasonable faxcimillie of what Anet wanted for these alliance battles

and as far as voice chat, well as long as you COULD turn it off at least there is a chance people wont be rediculous. But lets face it without efficient communication you cannot have a serious PvP experience.

But JR- no props to me for platning the seed of this thread?

JR · Mar 28, 2006, 05:06 PM // 17:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by icemonkey

But JR- no props to me for platning the seed of this thread?

If you did make a simmilar suggestion in another thread, then props to you indeed. I can't remember reading it, but I may well have done.

As to the suggestions of forced groups of four, I don't really see how that will help? The solo guy you are concerned about will now just have to join one of the many pugs forming in the district. He will still get on your team, and still mess up your game.

Unless of course you mean restrict it to guild groups of four? that could work nicely. But then people who aren't in a guild, or can't get the players miss out.

Greedy Gus · Mar 28, 2006, 05:14 PM // 17:14

Personally, I don't think it should be limited to guild groups. I'd like to see the maximum party be 12 people, yet you can go in with any amount. This allows people to still jump in on their own and get teamed up with random people, while also allowing hardcore guilds to put together their full 12 man party, and anything in between.

wheel · Mar 28, 2006, 05:16 PM // 17:16

Not restrict it to guild groups of 4. Forcing players to make groups of four makes it so that fewer bad players are able to join groups with crappy tank builds that don't do anything. There are always going to be bad players joining to ruin your day (not on purpose, mind you, just through stupidity and ignorance), but in a team setting, they'll get weeded out in most cases before they join your team. Plus, when you have a team situation, the maker of the group of 4 will at least have some semblance of strategy (at least more than a random group of 4 idiots would have).

icemonkey · Mar 28, 2006, 05:19 PM // 17:19

thats just not reasonable because then the groups of randoms will be facing 12 man guild groups that is just disheartening for the randoms

also single people going in,from what i heard, had to wait a long time to even get into a game tlaking like 10+ minutes of waiting.

I also think that limiting group size to 4 will encrougae leavers, sabatours(ie people from other side that switch and just commit suicide the whole match), and other things nobody wants in an alliance battle.

Parkerbsb · Mar 28, 2006, 05:19 PM // 17:19

Dii and SoW were doing alliance battles most of sunday night togther, it seems that as long as you hit the join mission at the same time you are about 80% guarenteed to be in the same battle. It was fun, but I agree that it was annoying when you had 4 people in the battle that weren't in the same voice chat.

To be honest I can see all guild groups dominating if they were allowed to join as a 12 man team, maybe allowing it to be 4 man teams from 3 seperate guilds would be a more fair way to go - this would help out with the alliance thing as well. Still a high chance of those teams rolling the PUG's, but at least it's more in line with the "vision" of these alliances

Greedy Gus · Mar 28, 2006, 05:26 PM // 17:26

Out of about 6 or 7 attempts to get together with another group from our guild, it never worked for me, yet we always hit it at the exact time.

suiraCLAW · Mar 28, 2006, 05:30 PM // 17:30

back to topic: i don't see a problem if those guild groups only fight other guild groups.

Vindexus · Mar 28, 2006, 06:39 PM // 18:39

The answer is no. If you start allowing 12 man groups, then that will be the requirement for anyone who wants to be competitive. The 12 man groups will absolutely decimate the random groups, which will make 12 man groups the standard. Can you imagine trying to get 12 people together with the problems that arise trying to get 8?

Alliance Battles aren't supposed to be high end PvP, so they should be accesible to the average player, and the average player doesn't have friends list or the time to get together 11 other people.

rii · Mar 28, 2006, 06:47 PM // 18:47

OMG A POLL!

I voted yes - with the ability to enter mission without having to organise a group like HA, the 12v12 concept could work well even with guilds running riot. You can organise a good pug if you want, and the individualistic nature of some potential playstyles means its entirely possible for random pugs to enjoy themselves.

Also of course, smaller groups of just 2 or 3 can be merged together and if they are taking it seriously minimal effort would be required to organise, i.e. ASF go right, FLT go middle, LFI go left. (as e.g.)

I dont know what level of pvp alliance battles are meant to be... but they have the potential to be pretty dam good... i say throw it out and see what happens.

Patrograd · Mar 28, 2006, 06:53 PM // 18:53

I voted yes just because the whole concept is rather pointless from a PVP perspective otherwise.

Divineshadows · Mar 28, 2006, 07:09 PM // 19:09

I voted no for much the same reasons as Vindexus.

Wasteland Squidget · Mar 28, 2006, 07:26 PM // 19:26

It's a tough question because as a gametype, 12v12 really cries out for greater strategy. GvG has 3 control points with various uses and levels of strategic importance, while 12v12 has a whopping 7. JR is completely correct in that a lot of us who make builds absolutely love the idea of trying to come up with strategies and builds to win a 12v12 match.

However, Vindexus is also right. It's not feasable for a lot of guilds (even competitive ones) to get 12 people on at a time consistently, and if you don't have 12 dedicated players and the larger guilds do you may as well not bother.

The best way I see to do it would be to split it up like Random and Team arenas, where you can go in with either an organized group of 12 for the Team Alliance Battles, or a smaller group of 4 for the randoms. The rewards would have to be the same for both, but it would allow people to explore 12v12 strategies without stepping on the PvP fun of the casuals.

Certainly this would fufill my needs. I've long been wanting both more strategic gametypes and fun gametypes that I can jump right into without waiting an hour to get a build and players together. The only real question (aside from programming time) is whether this sort of split would leave enough people on either side to consistently get games. Once Factions is released I think there will be plenty of players, but we'll have to see.

Patrograd · Mar 28, 2006, 07:38 PM // 19:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wasteland Squidget

It's not feasable for a lot of guilds (even competitive ones) to get 12 people on at a time consistently, and if you don't have 12 dedicated players and the larger guilds do you may as well not bother.

.

Sure, but an alliance battle isnt one guild against another, its an alliance of up to ten guilds against another alliance of up to ten guilds, or at least thats how it should be, otherwise why would it be called an "Alliance" battle?

Maybe I've read it wrong, but my view would be that this weekend's FPE was only to give a test to this form of combat on this type of map, but come release these will be battles between Alliances. In this way you need to find twelve players from your alliance, which shouldnt be all that difficult.

frickett · Mar 28, 2006, 07:43 PM // 19:43

I hate spending 45 minutes waiting for people to show up for pvp, and to make groups. This is why In pve I use henchies, and in PVP, I go to random arenas. I want to play the game, not wait to play the game, The way it is now, I can jump in, and I know the other side was just thrown together too. Wouldnt be fair to me if the other group had spent almost an hour tweaking their "team build" Just fix your Character build and jump into the fun please.

Wasteland Squidget · Mar 28, 2006, 07:44 PM // 19:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by T Waters

about that observer mode comment....plz not get off...its bad that people alrdy steal gvg/tombs build...what next stole 12v12 builds..this is not toward any of yall but a message to ANET...Stop making it easy! Its not supposed to be..

Yeah, ANet shouldn't encourage things that improve the player skill and understanding of the PvP community as a whole.

Wait a minute...

SaintGreg · Mar 28, 2006, 08:05 PM // 20:05

Yes, 12 person alliance/guild groups should be allowed to enter 12v12 if they face other 12 person builds. Random is not as much fun as taking a real build in, 12v12 guild battle equivalent would be mighty fun.

However they should keep the random 12v12 as well because I think that is a good idea, just as random arenas is a good idea, even if I don't play there.