Curse

Hell Marauder · Nov 08, 2006, 05:08 AM // 05:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by DIH49

Whenever someone poses to me the elitist issue, I ask them to solve this problem:

Suppose that rank is meaningless. If this is true, then an unranked person should be able to gather unranked people and perform equally as well as the ranked people. As such, there should be no desire to enter ranked groups in the first place.

Suppose that rank is meaningful. If this is true, then why should it be wrong or surprising that the ranked exclude the unranked from teams? As such, there should be no desire to enter ranked groups in the first place.

I have never yet met the anti-elitist who could provide an answer to my dilemma.

With that said, I find it rather amusing that people are still arguing the accessibility claim in the face of (what I believe to be) my crippling rebuttal. I think I've shown that the accessibility argument is fundamentally flawed and should be ignored.

************************************************** ********

@Yunas: I think you're giving Progor's analogy too much credit. It's certainly a fantastic analogy with regards to the arious sorts of games that people like to play, but it somewhat misses the important question. Namely, does it and should it apply to GW? I think the answer is clearly not. GW is not a game designed around the idea of commanding forces. That is simply a different sort of game, the RTS or sim genres. GW is a game about team interrelations, or in Progor's terms it's about being a "marine" with your buddies. It may very well be the case that people like the commander aspect too. Hell, I enjoy an RTS myself from time to time. But that's just a separate issue.

About your dilemma: when rank is meaningless, as you said, there would be no "desire" to enter a ranked group. But when rank is meaningful, there should be no "opportunity" to enter such ranked group, not "desire", because people would still want prestige, not that they'll all have opportunity to get it. Not everyone can get into Harvard, but with a good comminity college system in place, every tax payer is entitled to higher education suitable to his/her level of readiness. So the legitimate owners of NF are like the tax-paying public, and GW's HA is the education, which reward a good player with fame/rank which is analogous to diploma. In public college admission system, accessiblity is based on academic readiness of students, whereas in elite private schools, having an alumni in the family becomes a plus. So there's a good analogy to draw there. But the "key" is all have the same right (price of the game) to play in every aspect this game has to offer including HA. Whatever they encounter in HA, ai or humans, is more of quality issue than the basic right they earn with purchase. So for an elite system to be kept, like private schools, participants probably have to pay more (monthly charge anyone??) to keep that portion pure and away from rest of the public.

So the balance is between opportunity and desire, with former represented by ability to participate, and latter by fame/rank grouping. Heroes give every NF owner the same chance to play in HA. Fame/rank give them the desire or motivation to play. So this "accessibility" and "desire" are two different things, which unfortunately also mutually restricting each other. From Anet's perspective, expanding accessiblity is important, because they need revenues from new owners who have as much right to play in HA as older player, since they paid the same price for the game, as there's no monthly fee to justify the right of older players over new ones. I also must say that to win in GW's pvp does require highly cohesive groups of players, so there's definitely commanding aspect to it. Because skills are limited to 8, tactical flexibility is very restricted and that puts more emphasis on group cohesion and mutual support. With all that being said, removing heroes from HA is not a good solution, but I agree with the idea of limiting a hero per player so to give HA/GVG a more pvp feel as I've suggested in other threads, it's more of a balance between keeping accessiblity without hurting too much quality.

psiii · Nov 08, 2006, 10:16 AM // 10:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yunas Ele

So, anyone whos been to Heroes Ascent knows how disgusting this place has become. Its hard to call it PvP now since its basically farming fame off AI.

I have to say, even as a newcomer to HA, that I do agree with all the different points that you have mentionned.

However, you may want to consider the HA problem in a different way... As I see it, a lot of fame farmers have taken the fun out of HA. However 90% of those players are more likely to fail miserably in the very first stages of HA, thus making a few fame per run... But repeated x1000 times they'll eventually get their bambis...

Now, what will happen if you totally remove fame points from the *early* stages of HA ?

In my opinion :

- loosy fame farmers will start wondering "what's the point in playing that way if I can't even earn a single fame point", and (a) they will eventually go back to PvE or (b) they will start looking for more serious PvP way to play (real players groups).

- good players deserve good ranking, and so they will, because you will still be able to get fame from the later stages of HA.

I guess in this system everyone's happy

and I also do agree that heroes do not have their place in HA... at all.

Lord Mendes · Nov 08, 2006, 05:02 PM // 17:02

do whatever u want... HA is going to hell anyway

Just reading this thread affirms this... People valuing (sp?) fame over fun was never so much of an issue, but at least we were still fighting humans back then.

phoenixtech · Nov 08, 2006, 08:32 PM // 20:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arcanis the Omnipotent

And there, sadly, is what they are talking about.

The elitist attitude.

"We've been doing this longer so we're better than you, and the way we do it is better than yours."

Call me an elitist, but if you put me up vs some random person who's NEVER played in HA before and brings junk builds that won't work like oh troll ungent on rangers or something or wammo with HH, who's more likely to win? Now if you put my flist full of r9++ friends vs a group of those guys, who's more likely to win?

Here's a sad fact for you that most of the "beginners" don't understand. WE ARE BETTER THAN YOU AT THIS, SIMPLY BECAUSE WE ARE MORE EXPERIENCED.

No it absolutely does not mean you CANNOT be as good at this as we are if you are willing to put in the time/effort, but the problem with nubs is that they don't realize they are nubs, they think they know it all and refuse to learn.

HA is a Meritocracy not a DEMOCRACY, all of these self-entitled nubs who think they automatically deserve to enter r9++ groups then call "ELITISM" needs a reality check. It's like expecting to goto harvard or be CEO of a company without putting in any friggin effort. Imagine what the world would be like if everyone expects to get into every "TOP" school, job or whatever without having to put in any effort then complain about ELITISM when you don't get it.

Hell, imagine this senario, what if you need a surgical procedure done and instead of getting the best and most experienced doctor you got some kid who's still in medical school (since it'd be ELITISM to choose the more experienced doctor over him).

I remember when I was unranked, took my 3 hours to form a group that would lose first round and most of the time the entire team would rage quit, then it was another 3 hours to reform the group. You know what? It was worth it. I've met people during those times, made friends with those who didn't rage quit and stuck it through, and now we are all r9++. Why can't you do the same instead of QQing all day about elitism?

Lord Mendes · Nov 08, 2006, 09:04 PM // 21:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by phoenixtech

...

cheers for throwing it out into the open, and in all fairness i couldnt agree more. Expect some funny replies...

supaet · Nov 08, 2006, 09:27 PM // 21:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hell Marauder

About your dilemma: when rank is meaningless, as you said, there would be no "desire" to enter a ranked group. But when rank is meaningful, there should be no "opportunity" to enter such ranked group, not "desire", because people would still want prestige, not that they'll all have opportunity to get it. Not everyone can get into Harvard, but with a good comminity college system in place, every tax payer is entitled to higher education suitable to his/her level of readiness. So the legitimate owners of NF are like the tax-paying public, and GW's HA is the education, which reward a good player with fame/rank which is analogous to diploma. In public college admission system, accessiblity is based on academic readiness of students, whereas in elite private schools, having an alumni in the family becomes a plus. So there's a good analogy to draw there. But the "key" is all have the same right (price of the game) to play in every aspect this game has to offer including HA. Whatever they encounter in HA, ai or humans, is more of quality issue than the basic right they earn with purchase. So for an elite system to be kept, like private schools, participants probably have to pay more (monthly charge anyone??) to keep that portion pure and away from rest of the public.

So the balance is between opportunity and desire, with former represented by ability to participate, and latter by fame/rank grouping. Heroes give every NF owner the same chance to play in HA. Fame/rank give them the desire or motivation to play. So this "accessibility" and "desire" are two different things, which unfortunately also mutually restricting each other. From Anet's perspective, expanding accessiblity is important, because they need revenues from new owners who have as much right to play in HA as older player, since they paid the same price for the game, as there's no monthly fee to justify the right of older players over new ones. I also must say that to win in GW's pvp does require highly cohesive groups of players, so there's definitely commanding aspect to it. Because skills are limited to 8, tactical flexibility is very restricted and that puts more emphasis on group cohesion and mutual support. With all that being said, removing heroes from HA is not a good solution, but I agree with the idea of limiting a hero per player so to give HA/GVG a more pvp feel as I've suggested in other threads, it's more of a balance between keeping accessiblity without hurting too much quality.

So you're saying newbies cannot play hoh without heroes? that is just sad. After they get their rank3 or rank 6, what they going to do? keep playing with heroes? because if there are group that takes them, they will suck. I played with some ranked pug last night, rank3-4, they just plain SUCk. No strategy, no tactics, just ball up and die, and no resing either. WHY? Cause the damm heroes do the job for them. So newbies can never learn to play with human, they will always be noob and losing the experience they get in REAL pvp which they PAID for.

Not Prime Time · Nov 08, 2006, 09:49 PM // 21:49

/signed

Although free fame is nice, and rolling the all those Protectors and Explorers is fun (for a while). I don't like fighting the AI. There is a place to fight against the AI over and over again. It's called PvE, and ofcourse they have the hero battles.

SpeedyKQ · Nov 08, 2006, 10:34 PM // 22:34

I tend to agree with the OP. I'm mostly a PVE'er, but I think people who enjoy playing against other people should have places where they can do that. And if a place has always been PVP, seems unfair to change it.

I know I'd be upset if all of a sudden I had to play against human opponents to complete missions and quests.

(And yes, I want the damn UW and FoW that I paid for (and Urgoz and the Deep too) to be accessable though my PVE achievements. But that is a different thread.)

Age · Nov 08, 2006, 11:04 PM // 23:04

I would go even further and say 2 or 1 as Ha is about PvP but that all changed when Iway came along.

glountz · Nov 09, 2006, 12:37 AM // 00:37

/finally signed

Ghorta · Nov 09, 2006, 12:44 AM // 00:44

/signed

PvP is Players versus Players, not players versus some guy's AI bots...Without PvP Guild Wars is going to be nothing more than an online roleplaying game.....the consoles have enough of them....

tomcruisejr · Nov 09, 2006, 02:08 AM // 02:08

for all you guys who love and value elitism so much, uninstall game, give me your account and carry on with real life, where elitism is king.

elitism in a game is for the weak.

DIH49 · Nov 09, 2006, 02:50 AM // 02:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hell Marauder

But the "key" is all have the same right (price of the game) to play in every aspect this game has to offer including HA. Whatever they encounter in HA, ai or humans, is more of quality issue than the basic right they earn with purchase. So for an elite system to be kept, like private schools, participants probably have to pay more (monthly charge anyone??) to keep that portion pure and away from rest of the public.

You're drawing from a claim I did not make here. I never once expressed that any given person couldn't play in HA. The dilemma deals solely with the expresission of anger over elitism. It proves merely that such anger is either foolish (predicated on irrational notions) or misplaced (applied to fully justified systems). It does not follow from the dilemma that the unranked should not be allowed to use HA, merely that they should not expect to enter ranked groups (assuming rank matters).

Quote:

So the balance is between opportunity and desire, with former represented by ability to participate, and latter by fame/rank grouping. Heroes give every NF owner the same chance to play in HA.

They already had the same chance. Every person had an equal chance to join unranked groups when they were unranked. In the same way that, drawing on your analogy, everyone could attend community college when they were undergrads. That some people happen to have harvard law degrees is irrelevant.

Quote:

With all that being said, removing heroes from HA is not a good solution, but I agree with the idea of limiting a hero per player so to give HA/GVG a more pvp feel as I've suggested in other threads, it's more of a balance between keeping accessiblity without hurting too much quality.

My argument is that heroes inherently devalue PvP by directly contradicting its primary purpose and obligation. There is no function in which a teammate can be replaced with an AI and be in accordance with the definition of PvP. PvP necessitates people playing. AI per definition are not people, and so there is logical contradiction.

Sergio Leone · Nov 09, 2006, 03:01 AM // 03:01

/signed

I'll quote the tons of people who have said it "It's PvP not Hero vs. Hero"

These people can fine and dandy go down to hero battles and have the time of their life!

phoenixtech · Nov 09, 2006, 03:15 AM // 03:15

Also for those people who are arguing that they can't pug and participate in HA. The proposal here isn't to fully eliminate all Heros in HA. It's to limit it down to 3 real life people + 3 Heros/Henches.

shardfenix · Nov 09, 2006, 03:35 AM // 03:35

Heroes have no place in Heroes' Ascent... :/
I just wanted to say that to see how it looks.

Taking fame out of the earlier matches (only allowing fame in the "upper levels") would cut down all the hero groups, since most of them get rolled before they get to dark chambers anyway. Heroes just can't run relics. Since 99% of the HA population already has rank, this would make a lot of people quit.

Why not wipe the old fame system and completely redo it? All the people who are already high ranked will play with people they know and who know them, and the newer HA players will be able to gain fame without all the farming builds getting in their way. I have wanted a rank reset for a very very long time now, since 99.999999% of players got their rank with a gimmick build like iway, heroway, spike (arguably), or spirit spamming. Theplayer base is double what it was a year ago. Those new players missed all the godo chances to get fame, since all the "broken" or "overpowered" builds have been nerfed.

Back to the main topic. Heroes have no place in HA. Like everyone keeps saying, it's PvP, not AIvAI.

blakecraw · Nov 09, 2006, 03:47 AM // 03:47

/signed to the max

i don't even do ha (heck, the most likely way for me to do ha would be heroway, whcih i refuse to do for obvious reasons), but it's a worldwide pvp tournament, and people want what anet says they're giving: a pvp tournament, where groups of people compete to see who's the best. not to see who can farm fame the fastest, or who has the best skill bar for their heros, but to see who's able to beat everybody else and be on top for a little while.

anet needs a better way of getting people involved in ha/6v6/pvp than by ruining the experience for the people who play it now. 6v6 arenas would be nice, although only if they are non-random, because this would probably reduce the elitism (it's not for rank, not an actual tournament, just a battle arena) and would allow people to learn 6v6 fighting.

Cunning · Nov 09, 2006, 04:20 AM // 04:20

/Signed

Either remove HA or remove the AI heroes.

AI belongs elsewhere.

dawnrain · Nov 09, 2006, 04:22 AM // 04:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by shardfenix

Heroes have no place in Heroes' Ascent... :/
I just wanted to say that to see how it looks.

...

Why not wipe the old fame system and completely redo it? All the people who are already high ranked will play with people they know and who know them, and the newer HA players will be able to gain fame without all the farming builds getting in their way. I have wanted a rank reset for a very very long time now, since 99.999999% of players got their rank with a gimmick build like iway, heroway, spike (arguably), or spirit spamming. Theplayer base is double what it was a year ago. Those new players missed all the godo chances to get fame, since all the "broken" or "overpowered" builds have been nerfed.

[offtopic]
I like this idea. And if this is implemented ANet should modify the fame system. If the HA community is going to use fame as a skill measurement system, ANet should design it as such. A possible modification would be to only award fame once you win consecutive matches equal to your rank/2 or you win HoH. For example, if your rank is less than 3 you're awarded fame for every win. If you're rank 4 or 5, you're not awarded fame until you've won a second consecutive match (or HoH). Rank 8 or 9, isn't awarded fame until the 4th consecutive win (or HoH).
[/offtopic]

As to the original suggestion, I don't think it solves what ANet perceived to be a problem. HA was not "new/casual player friendly" enough. A requirement of multi-hour group formation followed by 1-2 min of play is not acceptable. I think the closest possible solution is a matching system (similar to GvG) so players of relatively equal skill are pitted against each other. It might not solve group formation but hopefully it won't lead to 1-2 min matches.

tomcruisejr · Nov 09, 2006, 04:58 AM // 04:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by blakecraw

...i don't even do ha (heck, the most likely way for me to do ha would be heroway, whcih i refuse to do for obvious reasons), but it's a worldwide pvp tournament, and people want what anet says they're giving: a pvp tournament, where groups of people compete to see who's the best.

http://ladder.guildwars.com

Quote:

not to see who can farm fame the fastest..

HA/Tombs is all about who can farm fame the fastest. why? coz there is rank and fame to farm, thats why.