Curse

Shriketalon · Jun 01, 2010, 09:10 PM // 21:10

We've had a few discussions about Aspenwood and Quarry of late, and I thought I would open up another one. A particular point, if you will...

Would Aspenwood and Quarry be improved if they used the Alliance Battle cap point mechanic?

It seems that many of the major problems in these maps stems from the fragility of the NPCs that guard points. Mine keepers are an easy arcane echoed RoJ away from doom, and bonding a single gate NPC is the superior defensive strategy to defeating foes. This makes the games very "swingy", if you'll pardon the crude term, with mines changing sides with blurring speed and gates rising and falling faster than Twenty Second Togo's little dragon in the bedroom.

If, to use the Aspenwood example, the Luxons could break through gates by amassing enough forces to chip away at the meter, and the Kurzicks could likewise hold them back by concentrating forces, would this improve the conditions of the siegeplay? With the game less reliant on bonding (and therefore able to scale back the turtles, making the Luxons less dependent on shepherding them and based more around killing things), battle would be a more stable, gradual process. Mines would be easier to retain and more rewarding to capture, gates would be about pressure rather than spikes, and both sides would be rewarded more for the ability to destroy the opponent and less by babysitting NPCs, be they turtles or gate minions.

The majority of PvP commentary seems to assert that pressure is more skillful than easy spiking. It means more teamwork rather than solo capping, more counter tactics by foiling the other team as they attempt to cap a point, and a greater appreciation for all professions within the mission (because the assassin swiftly killing an enemy and a monk preserving the team are both assisting the capture in their own way).

Now, one can hardly expect such a change to occur overnight, so this is mostly a hypothetical discussion rather than a suggestion. However, the question carries; does the alliance battle capture point method work better than the targeted NPC slaying used in competitive missions to accomplish the same idea?

Your thoughts?

Sticks and Stones · Jun 01, 2010, 09:34 PM // 21:34

It would make it to simular to normal AB, Jade Quarry and Fort Aspenwood are meant to be like..special scenarios if you like, to give people something different. They could use a little balancing or what have you, sure, but at the end of the day I think they are fairly evenly balanced (speaking as a staunch Luxon supporter).

ll Jamie ll · Jun 01, 2010, 09:36 PM // 21:36

IMO, I like the idea of Aspenwood, not sure if that would end up being successful though, many advantages on the luxon side (mines).

Keep JQ as it is, otherwise it would just be a miniature alliance battle.

EDIT: And as sticks said, they are meant to give PvPers something different from AB

Ka Tet · Jun 01, 2010, 09:38 PM // 21:38

I don't have any issues with JQ. It's about as close to balanced as you're going to find.
FA is a different story. The problem isn't the objectives it's the lack of balance.

FoxBat · Jun 01, 2010, 09:38 PM // 21:38

Yes, it would be better if JQ/FA were deleted, turned into AB maps, and allow randomwayers to be auto-teamed by entering with less than 4. Doesn't seem very likely though.

Ka Tet · Jun 01, 2010, 09:49 PM // 21:49

Stealing the team formation from AB might be fun tho. Would be an easy way to cut back on leeches and bots. And imagine knowing that at least 4/8 members of your team are competent. JOY!

Eragon Zarroc · Jun 01, 2010, 09:57 PM // 21:57

this would defeat the very purpose of these maps in the first place. for aspenwood is the only place in the game that you can get anything close to siege play. gvg can be likened to mild siegeplay, but not entirely. why would people ever go to ab again if they can get into ab matches without a team? and if there are no predefined teams to begin with, you would have complete chaos trying to control cap points. absolutely not. no ty.

/notsigned

jonnieboi05 · Jun 01, 2010, 10:37 PM // 22:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eragon Zarroc

this would defeat the very purpose of these maps in the first place. for aspenwood is the only place in the game that you can get anything close to siege play. gvg can be likened to mild siegeplay, but not entirely. why would people ever go to ab again if they can get into ab matches without a team? and if there are no predefined teams to begin with, you would have complete chaos trying to control cap points. absolutely not. no ty.

/notsigned

This somewhat says what's on my mind on the topic.

Quail Stomp · Jun 02, 2010, 04:12 AM // 04:12

I like the idea of forming teams in fa/jq just to screw over the bots that keep coming back. Me and a few others sat back for 15 mins counting the knowed bots in the lux side of jq. We counted 19, that was a bit more than people that was active.

The Drunkard · Jun 02, 2010, 06:12 AM // 06:12

I think fa/jq should recieve a revamp (it's been the same for how many years?), though I think it should be unique to the area and not just copy-pasta. Maybe giving the npc's certain skills like turtle siege to resist RoJ spam in JQ/ab might help.

Yuki Juggernaut · Jun 02, 2010, 06:30 AM // 06:30

No, I don't think it'll make it better. It'll just turn them into another version of AB.

Next thread, please!

Elnino · Jun 02, 2010, 06:37 AM // 06:37

IMO, FA/JQ are fine as they are (excluding the bugs). Having to cap the mines the way capping is done in AB will just give the luxons another unneeded advantage.
Your idea will make all three formats similar in a way; which is not a good idea.

And tbh, it's AB that deserve some attention. It is stuck on the same 2 maps and not enough people are playing it.