Curse

The Ernada · Dec 23, 2006, 08:59 PM // 20:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Draikin

True, although I find that spirit spammers + assassin holding builds are simply overpowered because of the way the shrines work. Who's going to outmaneuver an assassin with shadow of haste + shadow prison when it comes to positioning, or take down a team with 3 spirit spammers while the assassin runs of capping the other shrines?

I agree. Not so much that they're overpowered, because anywhere else the build is sort of useless, but in the HvH format they're too easy to run with little or no effort for a lot of effectiveness. Which is why you see so many of them. Besides, cookie cutter builds are bad. See too many of them and ANET is going to change it just to vary the metagame.

Winstar · Dec 23, 2006, 09:49 PM // 21:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoxBat

The reason for anet support, good or not, is threefold

A) You have to buy the latest product Nightfall to play hero battles.

B) It's an outlet for 1v1 competition. (No snide remarks about 1 vs 3 AI, if the human player isn't piloting their heroes at least somewhat, they aren't going to win against someone who is.)

C) But most importantly of all, it is easy to track. With the anti-guesting rules , a guild vs guild roster stays relatively fixed for a season. How do you track Team Arenas progress, when in TA you can take any 4 people from any guild or guildless? If you fix 4 players to a team with a custom team name for the duration of the season, your basically making them into a mini-guild. Which may not be a bad idea but will probably be frowned on by anet for being inelegant and basically reproducing GvG where they didn't want to. Inidividuals OTOH are very easy to track, they can even switch guilds as much as they like without affecting anything, you're still always the same person with the same rating unless you have multiple accounts.

Nonetheless I think mini-tournament support for TA would be awesome. Even if no long-term ladder or big tournies, just a bunch of elimination tournies with some prize at the end would be fun. Although though this is pretty much stepping on the toes of HA if it remains a 6-player arena (and if anything is ever done about altar).

Good points, cheers. Some thoughts (I realize you weren't citing your points as justifications but just possible explanations

)

1) Sadly this is bad reason to support HB from a players perspective. It might be financially lucrative to push more copies of the game but not necessarily good for players.

2) I don't think additional TA support would be that difficult. Mini tournaments are one thing, registering a 4 person team for a ladder season, Track individual success in some way etc. The benefit is that it is a PvP format. Regardless of how much one directs the heros, they are still mainly doing their own thing, there is only so much micro management one can do. I think the HB arenas could be a lot of fun with some changes and making it a 4v4 setup. Heros, meh. It is a kind of 1v1, but really GW had the choice of supporting 4v4, making some changes to HA (removing heroway was simply a patch to return it towards a state of normality not a true update) and 1v1 (HB). HB since release had been a largely a bit of a wasteland that never really caught on, so it seems rather out of the blue to try and push this format.

Anyway, none of this has anything to do with bitching about HB because of elitism. I greatly appreciate the work ANET has done and I'm excited to see the tournament system. I just find it weird that HB would be suddenly given such a push to the exclusion of formats. It could very well be that HB was pushed because its more accessible to a broad audience. But in time if it does become more played because of the changes, the play quality will increase, the average gamer won't really have a place there (or have a fighting chance anyway) and in the end you'll just have a different hardcore pvp format (though with heros...). But then why not just work on improving something you already have (TA, HA) which is a full pvp format that has a crowd of dedicated gamers already?

The Ernada · Dec 23, 2006, 10:03 PM // 22:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winstar

But then why not just work on improving something you already have (TA, HA) which is a full pvp format that has a crowd of dedicated gamers already?

Did you miss the threads from Gaile about getting feedback to improve HA? So why do you think that they arent already trying to improve HA? And yes I'd like to see TA get some improvements as well.

But I still don't see any reasons brought up why trying to introduce a format to a broader audience (i.e. Hero Battles) in any way is a bad thing or hurts other PVP formats. Saying that it stretches resources is a flimsy reason. We all know that working on multiple things at once doesnt mean quality suffers, especially when it's not just about the work but about the ideas.

Winstar · Dec 23, 2006, 10:23 PM // 22:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Ernada

Did you miss the threads from Gaile about getting feedback to improve HA? So why do you think that they arent already trying to improve HA? And yes I'd like to see TA get some improvements as well.

But I still don't see any reasons brought up why trying to introduce a format to a broader audience (i.e. Hero Battles) in any way is a bad thing or hurts other PVP formats. Saying that it stretches resources is a flimsy reason. We all know that working on multiple things at once doesnt mean quality suffers, especially when it's not just about the work but about the ideas.

I realize ANET is listening to concerns, in particular bravo for reducing the role of heros in HA which as I said is not really a real change or development but just a patch for something that got broke. I'm sure they are working to improve and implement changes in a variety of areas. The oddity is that HB, which was honestly the bottom of the PvP barrell, not only got some attention but equal support in terms of tournaments and prizes to what has always been the top of the pvp pile, GvG. I have nothing against improving HB. Add a title, have consecutive match win streaks or something, but suddenly making it part of the PvP flagship when its at this point the weakest of all the PvP formats (partially not even PvP) instead of propping up HA or TA seems to be a mistake to me. Perhaps in time they will do more for these formats, and that would be great.

The Ernada · Dec 23, 2006, 10:39 PM // 22:39

Well, think of it this way. PVP already has a tournament. And now the casual more PVE oriented crowd get a tournament now too. A lot of hardcore PVPers don't consider HB to be PVP at all, so now it's a case of the other side (hardcore PVP) not liking what the other side of the fence (More PVE oriented PVP players) getting things.

And really, I doubt that HB tournaments and prizes will be anything on par to GVG tournaments. There really is no reason to feel threatened that the rewards will be the same for both.

Cyan The Archer · Dec 24, 2006, 12:21 AM // 00:21

Would be some exciting HvH tournaments...

X team rolls 67 on a 100 sided die.
Y team rolls 74 on a 100 sided die.
X has left the game.

Observer: "Woah! Did you see that? HOW AWESOME! The style of play, the leetness, the BUILD!"
"Dammit, i think X should've won. X usually rolls more than 90"

AiLLUSION · Dec 24, 2006, 02:16 AM // 02:16

Rolls a 100 on a 100 sided die.

YAY i won the championship.

I seriously think hb needs changes, I faced someone today with 2 monk and rit hero, and the person himself was r/rt FERTILE/symb/rit spirits spam.........biggest waste of time ever.

unmatchedfury · Dec 24, 2006, 02:22 AM // 02:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avarre

Haha.. 2Mo 1Rt 1X trying to camp the center shrine for 10 minutes is exciting and thought-provoking?

Its owned in seconds if you brought a counter to rits? Spiritual pain hasn't been nerfed yet that I'm aware of.

Winstar · Dec 24, 2006, 03:14 AM // 03:14

after reading more in the \roll 100 thread i take back any positive insinuation I made about HB. ANET might as well give tournament support afkers in fort aspenwood next.

Orbberius · Dec 24, 2006, 04:24 AM // 04:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zinger314

Because TA is dead due to abuse, and HA is dead due to abuse. HB is new and can be redeemed.

And HB is much more exciting and thought-provoking than any TA or HA slugfest.

I'm sorry, but TA is about a billion times better than HvH. This is just plain simple fact to anyone who PvPs seriously.

Hell Marauder · Dec 24, 2006, 05:30 AM // 05:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winstar

after reading more in the \roll 100 thread i take back any positive insinuation I made about HB. ANET might as well give tournament support afkers in fort aspenwood next.

Don't let your prejudice against random pvp cloud your thinking. This \roll problem has more to do with the rule oversight than the actual HB play itself. Similar cheating has occurred in RA/TA for very long time, with members of same guild hit enter simultaneously to be grouped/matched together in the same game. So rigging the outcome isn't HB's problem alone. Needless to say, it needs to be fixed asap, and same for afk leechers issues in FA.

Majority of GW's players care more about "fun" of pvp than "quality" of pvp. Anything that squashes creativity and freedom is not fun, which explains why organized pvp isn't very appealing to many pvers. But so far, aside from AB/FA, Anet has yet found a bridge that can bring its huge PVE playerbase over to pvp. GW's future does not sit well if the current schism between PVE and PVP playerbase widens, because its model probably cannot provide enough endgame content to satisfy its bread-and-butter PVE playerbase without some help from its PVP portion.

So HvH is getting the support perhaps in a move to appeal to majority of NF pvers out there who have had more experiences working with heroes npc's than organized pvp. But it's a questionable move imo, as tournament and championship aren't what most are craving for. Casual players like me want freedom and fun, not the pyramid-like cutthroat competition. I feel more work on expanding ideas of AB/FA would have brought more pvers over to pvp than HB. A successful formula requires giving bad/average players, who constitute most of GW's playerbase, a chance to learn while give them some chance at beating good players to keep them interested in the game; being slightly massive wouldn't hurt either. NF's HvH just doesn't have the same appeal that AB had at beginning of Faction's release. So I too question Anet's move, but from a different angle and perspective.

Finally, GW is all about skills/builds; pvp and pve are just different ways of applying those skills. So both pvers and pvpers should really work together to seek a solution helping the game expanding its appeal to the mass; it's for the benefit of all.

Avarre · Dec 24, 2006, 05:36 AM // 05:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by unmatchedfury

Its owned in seconds if you brought a counter to rits? Spiritual pain hasn't been nerfed yet that I'm aware of.

That's why I said trying.

Redfeather1975 · Dec 24, 2006, 05:43 AM // 05:43

It's all about marketing.
The company is focusing on new features that require buying the latest installment. Which is how it works in business.
I think Anet has done a good job of making Nightfall more worthwhile to buy with all the extra things they are giving people to do in it.
I like the Treasures!

myword · Dec 24, 2006, 07:17 AM // 07:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amity and Truth

Why?
Why is it a joke?
Does the GvG Crowd somehow exist of superior human beings or something? I don't see any reason why the GvG Players should be treated differently. They play the same game. They have payed the same price for it as everyone else. So why should they be any special?
What is the troublesome influence that will spring from allowing Heroes Battle Fans to have a ladder of their own? Please, tell me how this does influence the GvG Player.

It's a different part of the game. A part of the same game though. GvG is just one side and like every other side not any better than the other sides. As i said earlier, i think it's just some sort of FOTM to bombard Heroes.

if you'll wipe the froth off your mouth and finish your pointless rant, you'll realise that it's a joke because players have been asking for a ladder for team arena since... beta? that ANet would choose to give this to HvH and not TA is ridiculous

Winstar · Dec 24, 2006, 07:32 AM // 07:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hell Marauder

Don't let your prejudice against random pvp cloud your thinking. This \roll problem has more to do with the rule oversight than the actual HB play itself. Similar cheating has occurred in RA/TA for very long time, with members of same guild hit enter simultaneously to be grouped/matched together in the same game. So rigging the outcome isn't HB's problem alone. Needless to say, it needs to be fixed asap, and same for afk leechers issues in FA.

Majority of GW's players care more about "fun" of pvp than "quality" of pvp. Anything that squashes creativity and freedom is not fun, which explains why organized pvp isn't very appealing to many pvers. But so far, aside from AB/FA, Anet has yet found a bridge that can bring its huge PVE playerbase over to pvp. GW's future does not sit well if the current schism between PVE and PVP playerbase widens, because its model probably cannot provide enough endgame content to satisfy its bread-and-butter PVE playerbase without some help from its PVP portion.

So HvH is getting the support perhaps in a move to appeal to majority of NF pvers out there who have had more experiences working with heroes npc's than organized pvp. But it's a questionable move imo, as tournament and championship aren't what most are craving for. Casual players like me want freedom and fun, not the pyramid-like cutthroat competition. I feel more work on expanding ideas of AB/FA would have brought more pvers over to pvp than HB. A successful formula requires giving bad/average players, who constitute most of GW's playerbase, a chance to learn while give them some chance at beating good players to keep them interested in the game; being slightly massive wouldn't hurt either. NF's HvH just doesn't have the same appeal that AB had at beginning of Faction's release. So I too question Anet's move, but from a different angle and perspective.

Finally, GW is all about skills/builds; pvp and pve are just different ways of applying those skills. So both pvers and pvpers should really work together to seek a solution helping the game expanding its appeal to the mass; it's for the benefit of all.

I was largely kidding with what I said. I just find it funny that the problem of the roll 100 things pops up about the time they decide to support HB as a legit format. As for fun and playability, I agree that if the motivation for supporting HvH is to appeal to a casual audience that its the wrong way to do it. Making it prizeworthy makes it competative and not casual. Eventually people will get better and they'll iron out the problems and HvH will become as inaccessible to the casual gamer as GvG is now. Perhaps in the process they'll rope a lot of people into the pvp arena who knows.

Whether or not they need to worry about getting people from pve to crossover just depends on whether they think it will sustain the game in the long run. If not, then why not just concentrate on giving pvers what they really want, good pve content and giving PvPers what they really want, good pvp content. Cut the crap middle ground stuff.

Anyway, it really doesn't make any sense unless you look at it like a marketing move of some kind. If it was a decision that reflected the value of the format in any way, then I would be forced to conclude that Anet is off their collective rockers.

C2K · Dec 24, 2006, 07:45 AM // 07:45

If they can disable roll in outposts and towns, they can easily do it in HvH. And I'm sure these HvH tournaments will be monitored by Anet and people "fixing" the ladder could get the same penalties that GvG teams get for rules violations. If there are bugs in the system, whats to say they won't fix them.

HvH ladder isn't a sleight against anyone.

GvG = Guild Accomplishment

HvH = Individual Accomplishment

Winstar · Dec 24, 2006, 08:05 AM // 08:05

The problem is that it seems like part of the point of GW is that individual accomplishment is a part of guild/team accomplishment. Its not a game meant or useful as a 1v1 stage. Even the proposed 1v1 stage is really not 1v1, it a 4v4 stage. Each person has to be supplimented with AI. The only individual accomplishment here is your ability to select a team skillbar and direct npcs around a map. Substantial individual accomplishment occurs in the context of team/guild accomplishment by being able to skillfully play your role within the context of a teams larger goals.

tomcruisejr · Dec 24, 2006, 09:53 AM // 09:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winstar

The problem is that it seems like part of the point of GW is that individual accomplishment is a part of guild/team accomplishment. Its not a game meant or useful as a 1v1 stage.

Why do you think A.Net implemented HvH?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winstar

Each person has to be supplimented with AI. The only individual accomplishment here is your ability to select a team skillbar and direct npcs around a map.

you can also customize the heroes bar not to use skills automatically. not only you can control your 8 skill bar but also you have a full control of the remaining 24 skills used by your heroes. and you need extreme multitasking ability to use skills accordingly or in correct sequence (e.g. sever then gash)
and direct the hero where do you want them to be, attack, stay put or avoid battle (microing)

HvH players are playing in a team that usually/traditionally needs 4 players. So all the job of those 4 players are being done by a single player. if a single player can make its heroes emulate three independent and competent persons, isn't that skill? isn't that worthy of a tournament?

The Ernada · Dec 24, 2006, 10:05 AM // 10:05

Sadly, there's going to be prejudice by people who look down on this PVP format. Which is silly really. It's all for fun, whether you play PVE, HA, GvG, TA, or HvH. You don't have to like them all but to come in here to say "Go play some real PVP, this is a joke" smacks of insecurity and snobbishness.

anonymous · Dec 24, 2006, 10:37 AM // 10:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avarre

Toddlers splashing in a pool and olympic althletes are both swimming, but if you think they are on the same level of effort and capability, or deserving of the same attention, then your logic is oddly intrinsic.

And neither of them are playing a video game.