Curse

MACE · Aug 20, 2007, 03:51 PM // 15:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by haswar

Say for example if you win each round you earn 5 points of "<title name-dynamic> + 'Conquerer'" title <--sounds good

in homelands. In enemy lands you will earn more. If you lose a round at homeland you will not earn anything. However in enemy lands if you lose you still earn 2 points for example.
Therefore by implementing this new rank system, we the ABer can have gauge system so we know the expereinces players *similar to HoH system yknow.
Ofcourse you earn Alliagence faction point as well even when you lose. never hurt to add something new rather to edit current things

Heh, dont mind me I am just throwing out my ideas. Whetever people agree or not agree. I don't really mind.
Peace.

I agree that creating a new pvp only title would be much better than trying to continue using one that can be advanced through pve as well, and I think the mechanic you suggested is pretty sound. I would only make one change myself, and that would be to give 1 point for losses even on home territory, since you *do* learn from losing as well as winning, sometimes even more than by winning.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tark Alkerk

getting back to the task at hand, the vote kick feature is a nice idea, but it has a rather fatal flaw.

will anyone use it?

when i play games like BF2 which have vote kick features, the amount of times i have seen a player get vote kicked, is around the number zero.

This is exactly what Im talking about when I say that the chances of a kick system being abused are very very slim. I personally cannot recall *ever* seeing someone kicked for the wrong reason. Of course there will allways be idiots that will call a vote because of something someone said, but those votes never pass.
On the other hand, while I have not played BF2 enough to even see a vote called, The voting system has varied success depending on the game audience, for example, it is usually fairly successful in the quake line of games (Im assuming this is because the player base for these games tends to be more serious, hardcore gamers) and only moderately successful in games like Counterstrike, with less serious players. So the vote system should be tailored occording to the game it will be used for. For example, a majority of 7/8 would probably suit HOH as it is much more hardcore, 6/8 would probably make sense for high end pve, and 5/8 for standard pve missions. AB is quite a bit more relaxed than other forms of pvp, I think that a 75% vote would probably be about right. Of course, these are just starting numbers, and could be adjusted depending on how well the system works, or does not work.
There is one more mechanic I forgot to explain earlier as well.
One of the main reasons votes fail is because many players do not vote at all. To address this, there would be a time out on a vote, probably a minute, maybe 90 seconds at most. At the end of this grace period, any voters who failed to vote would be thrown out, and the majority would be decided based on the ones that *did* vote. So, if for example, only 4/12 players voted, and a majority of 75% had to vote for it to pass, then 3 of those 4 votes would have to be in favor. There would have to be a minimum number of total votes to have a vote pass of course, so that one person could not pass a vote simply because the rest were apathetic, probably a 25% minimum would be required.

Quote:

Originally Posted by moriz

no to the /votekick idea. simply because i prefer to win AB battles, and to win, i'll resort to any trick/tactic available to me. even using vulgar language to goad opponents into chasing me across the map. having this command will probably get me kicked out of a lot of groups, when i'm helping my side to win.

See above. I think the chance of you getting booted from a round for taunting the enemy is almost nil. I think its actually fairly unlikely that a vote would even be called for this purpose by your own team, unless it is incredibly annoying.

Quote:

Originally Posted by moriz

instead, i suggest the following fix to leechers:

IF a person leaves OR does not move out of the starting area: a random npc spawns and follows the team leader. this npc can be warrior, ranger, or ele (using the same builds as the elite warrior, ranger, and ele respectively).

IF the person is leeching, he/she won't gain any factions. if such a person is killed (on ancestual lands and kanaii canyons), the killer's side will not receive factions.

my idea does not kick a leecher out of the game. it merely safely ignores it while providing an npc to fill out a body count. and let's face it: i'd rather have the npcs than most players, since most of the players out there are worse than the npcs.

I do not think that a vote / kick system should be the only solution to leechers, there should be automated systems such as the ones you suggest in place as well. I believe this has been suggested allready. I think these are all very good ideas, In particular, I like the idea of adding an elite NPC to a team with someone that is afk, this has not been put forward before, and I think its a very good idea. It would be nice if it tried to replace the class that is missing if possible, since good parties will tend to try to balance out their team (this is a problem in HOH, when you get an ele to replace a warrior, or a warrior to replace a monk, which *really* sucks)
While I do agree that many AB players are not so great, I do still feel that in most cases its quite a bit easier to kill an NPC however, I know that if I am fighting a group that has one of them following them around, I will usually kill it first, just because its usually much easier to kill than a player. But, honestly, that is beside the point. Having an elite ele with you is far better than having no one at all.

Effendi Westland · Aug 20, 2007, 04:17 PM // 16:17

To be honest, I thought I had addressed your point, but you conveniently do not quote me where I try to do that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MACE

However, the way that the title is primarily used by the players in game at the moment, is to exhibit experience playing in AB (even though *in theory* a player may have gotten all their faction farming pve quests, it is rather unlikely, and I dont know of anyone that has acheived any significant rank this way) therefore, it should probably be addressed more as a pvp title than a pve title.

I asked you to go to Luthgardis International to see for yourself... you ignore that completely, so I did it for you. These are fast faction farmers and did not get their rank through playing AB. Took me two minutes to find these.

I've seen a rank 12 kurzick in AB town once, and when people said no way you got so far doing AB, he responded: FFF FTW!!

What I see alot though is people using real pvp titles when in AB town. Rank 4 champs, rank 9 heros, sometimes a rank 12, lots of deers and wolves being spammed.

MACE · Aug 20, 2007, 06:52 PM // 18:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Effendi Westland

To be honest, I thought I had addressed your point, but you conveniently do not quote me where I try to do that.

Since you actually seem to think you addressed the topic, I will go against my better judgement, and reply to you.

I didn't quote you on that for the same reason I didn't respond to it at all: It is just another deflection argument where you are trying to argue about something that no one is even debating, not once has anyone said you can not get Alliance faction from doing pve. In fact, *none* of the points you keep trying to argue are up for debate.
No one disputes that people farm the title in pve. No one disputes it is easier for Kurzicks to farm it in pve than for Luxons. No one disputes that there are high rank Kurzicks that got their title from pve farming. The *only* thing that could possibly be construed as being up for dispute would be that among AB players more highly ranked Kurzicks got their title from pvp, than from pve, however, this was *never* actually stated. But you seem to think it was implied. It was not.

Continuing to argue that you can get alliance faction in pve when no one has even said you can't just doesn't make any sense.
If you are thinking that replying to my offhand remark that I don't know anyone that faction farmed to rank 12 is addressing the original point, you are just plain silly. First off, that statement is not even *in* the original post, secondly, I did not say "there are no players that farmed their rank through pve" I said I didn't know any. I obviously do not know every player in the game, and never asserted that I did. And Thirdly, but most importantly, it is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Since you seem to be completely incapable of addressing the original reply, and instead choose to create new things to argue about, I will make it easy for you, and re post it here for you again:

Quote:

Originally Posted by MACE

Regardless of how you may feel about the Friend title track, the fact remains that you can advance it through one of the forms of pvp in Guildwars, therefore it can be used to some degree as a gauge of player experience in that form of pvp, and that is precisely what most players use that title to represent, so whether you think it was designed as a pve title or even *if* Anet were to announce that it is intended as a pve title is irrelevant.

I'll restate it in even simpler terms for you:

In absence of a purely pvp title track for Alliance Battles, the majority of AB players use the Friends title track for this purpose. Any arguments about the pve aspects of the title are irrelevant, they do not change this fact.

The ironic thing about all this is that I personally do not actually agree with using the Friends track as a gauge of player competency, for some of the reasons that have been stated by various people in this forum, and for some that have not been stated at all. For this reason, I *usually* display my hero title, or possibly one of my maxed pve titles (I personally feel that having captured all the elites in the game is more work than most of the other pve titles in game) if I'm not playing a pvp character.

The thing is, my personal feelings on the matter are irrelevant, as are anyone else's, the fact remains that most AB players use the title in this way. Ignoring them seems rather unfair.

Lorinda · Aug 20, 2007, 08:08 PM // 20:08

All the people in here are voting YES I WANT for the vote kick option. But we in guildwars have 1 advantage over Battlefield (what is offen called here)
We can pick what people we want, ask builds and get to see who the person reacts. Also we can build up friendslists and get into decent guilds to play some good AB.
It should be enough to get a decent person into your team. Ofcourse you cant see if a person is going to leech if he/she is nicely answering your questions.

Maybe a new option in your friendslist will be nice. Like Non wanted teammates.
The game will warn you if you invite/want to join a person that is there. It might be because he/she is not very friendly or you had him/her leeching in your team before. It can be used in the compleet game not just AB.

Just a really dom idea to fight leechers. Morph the leecher into a frog after being afk for more then 7 minutes. Then you got time to go to the door or answer the phone. When you are a frog you dont get faction for a kill or the winning of the game. It will end when you are near a point that is being capped. Meaning you have to move again.

New AB title:
Might be nice, maybe chain that with Balthazar. I like MACE his idea for getting a point for losing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MACE

I agree that creating a new pvp only title would be much better than trying to continue using one that can be advanced through pve as well, and I think the mechanic you suggested is pretty sound. I would only make one change myself, and that would be to give 1 point for losses even on home territory, since you *do* learn from losing as well as winning, sometimes even more than by winning.

It might encourge people to play AB to get some more cap into their Balthazar faction. It should be more then logic to have it also because it will become a decent PvP title then.

@ Effendi Westland
The Kurzick and Luxon titles are not PvP only nor PvE only.
Ofcourse you can get them by playing PvE. Anet even gave skills for them. And yes you are right that a lot of kurzicks just farm that quest. But then again why do it the hard way if you can get gold and faction for something that is far more easier.
Your claiming almost all Kurzicks farm this quest.
Even been on Kurzick side in AB? The waiting times there are very very long... Far longer then on Luxon side.
Might be because a lot more people are Kurzick or just because a lot of people want to AB on Kurzick side.

Now if you please move back to the PvP disscussion in the topic? We are talking about new things in AB, the OP didnt even start about the PvE skills or the fact that kurzicks can farm the title.

honu pueo · Aug 20, 2007, 08:13 PM // 20:13

ok I guess I will weigh in since I have played as a Kurzick (steward) and as a Lux (bastion) now both from ab...no fff hours whatsoever
I have played with the thread starters and against them when I was a Kur. Even as a Kur I used to watch them in action and could see they were playing at a higher level than us Kur were at the time, most of the time.
I am an officer in Tas...we currently recruit at r3 and above for the most part and our roster is always full. We were [any] allaince faction leaders before they got a bunch of Kur defector fffers.

I have to agree with the points mentioned but was wondering if the kick thing would work? I do think it would be great if u started a game and had an immediate leaver (say first 5 minutes) u could get a player who is added based on the composite rank of ur team... if your team averages r4 and above he is r4 etc.
The very randomness of noobs and leets is the unknown part of ab that can be fun and frustrating as all hell...
What probably needs to happen is higher ranks to ab track...and perhaps a ab elite server dedicated to ab with r 8 ( flexible on this point) or higher ranks only allowed into that map. Kur fff guys u better be good lol. Podium for leet abers set up in waiting area of maps thats locked to lower levels of abers than req for the lower level abers to gaze upon and bow down lol
It adds incentive to get ur titles up and at least from the Lux side of the game the players are prob gonna be decent enough, Kurs prob more a mixed bag because a great Kur FFF might not be such a great aber. Now that Lux fff is getting a stronger push same holds for us. anyone good points ayb ...honu

Solas · Aug 20, 2007, 08:56 PM // 20:56

the fff makes ab pointless in the faction ttile track part, personally i would like to see this system gone and have the pure ab guilds owning the towns as opposed to the fff ones

Amby Wolf · Aug 21, 2007, 03:49 AM // 03:49

I only wish people could respect other players. All this thread has turned into is a my title is better than yours. I think I lose faith in people more and more everyday. The fact is All the titles out there should get some respect. All of them take time and dedication to do. And if it was one that you can even afk at then all the time it took to get the money to do it. (Lucky/Unlucky) And for the last time you must be retarded to think AB is not a kind of PvP. It's not like the whole team you go ageist is a npc. This is a compatishion agents real people. If you think this is anything less than a PvP event you better go look up what PvP is agine. So I don't want to hear about any other titles in this thread agine. We are talking about AB and how to make it better. Discussing changes that could be made, and what would make the ABers happy. Anyone in this thread who don't like to ab need to stfu and go QQ in a corner.

Effendi Westland · Aug 21, 2007, 07:34 AM // 07:34

I play AB, so I have a right to an opinion about this, there is just alot of things being said which are simply not true. I'm seeing alot here argued by people who obviously play from the luxon side, I'm trying to show the other side.

(and FYI, the fff is done by one person, while 2-7 players afk it, also very popular pasttime for survivors, there being absolutely no risk at all)

I did find a little gem here, the only thing I can agree with.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Talach_Ninneed

the fff makes ab pointless in the faction ttile track part, personally i would like to see this system gone and have the pure ab guilds owning the towns as opposed to the fff ones

This I agree with.

Songbringer · Aug 21, 2007, 01:11 PM // 13:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by greenreaper3

i agree with him... they just need a TOTALLY equal map... ppl say eteran keys is equal.. but how dothe luxons get bases capped first, why are luxon shrines closer, cause its a luxon map... and yeah... i wait for like, 10 minutes to finally get in, spend 15 minutes abing, just to lose and get only 300 points.... PATHETIC should be winner gets 2k, loser gets 1k or something

wat ppl say etnaren keys is equal? the idiots u listen to in local. LET ME TELL EVERY1 HOW IT IS

Canyon= Luxon based
Keys= Luxon based
Beach= Neutral
Grenz= Kurzick Based
Ancestral= Kurzick based

Songbringer · Aug 21, 2007, 01:14 PM // 13:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Effendi Westland

I play AB, so I have a right to an opinion about this, there is just alot of things being said which are simply not true. I'm seeing alot here argued by people who obviously play from the luxon side, I'm trying to show the other side.

(and FYI, the fff is done by one person, while 2-7 players afk it, also very popular pasttime for survivors, there being absolutely no risk at all)

I did find a little gem here, the only thing I can agree with.

This I agree with.

FYI FFF IS DUN BY 5 PPL 1 BEACH RUNNER 1 SHROOM RUNNER 1 BRIDGE RUNNER 1 STAIRS RUNNER AND DOORMAN!!! god complain things arent true then say sumthing wrong. it can be dun by less but for maximum effiecieny thats wat u use

Songbringer · Aug 21, 2007, 01:17 PM // 13:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Effendi Westland

I don't want fewer people to play AB, so /not signed.

The system after the change is great, AB-ing has never been as much fun. We all got shafted by this update, for me it's the huge amounts of amber and jade that never added to my titles.

Now that buying jade/amber adds to the title too, donating should count as double, otherwise the price of amber/luxon would quickly go down to what the merchant wants to offer (I know it ain't that great now, but I know alot of new players who make money to buy skills and armor for their pve toons through ab).

Increased title cap? The title is clearly a pve title, as pvp titles cannot be maxed, it's also quicker to attain in pve (especially if you are kurzick). There are skills now balanced to it, and although you say, but remove added affect to these skills, I do not agree, I also do not see this happening with EotN and the Hall of Monuments which has a link to this max title.

A voting system is not the answer, I can see uptight leaders trying to get someone voted out simply because that person isn't doing what the leader wants, but is contributing anyway.

I don't want to be pulled into a battle thats already going on (and probably a losing battle, as thats when people leave), so I don't think the if someone leaves then get soemone from town option is good. Half of the unteamed people in AB towns are afk anyway.

New maps maybe, however you want them filled with things that make AB less pvp then it already is.

btw HA has double fame weekends semi-regulary, the HA-ers are divided by it, some complain about it, but when I see more of my friends in HA then usual I know that deep down they like the added fame, so they can get the next rank quicker.

wat pvp titles dont have max? there is a legend champ legend hero legend glad? thats 3 pvp titles with a max....o and cobra commander the max rank in hb where is there not a max title???????

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Title look before u speak

Effendi Westland · Aug 21, 2007, 05:38 PM // 17:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Songbringer

FYI FFF IS DUN BY 5 PPL 1 BEACH RUNNER 1 SHROOM RUNNER 1 BRIDGE RUNNER 1 STAIRS RUNNER AND DOORMAN!!! god complain things arent true then say sumthing wrong. it can be dun by less but for maximum effiecieny thats wat u use

It has been a while since I did those, and I guess my alliance wasn't the most efficient at doing them. My point was that it is mostly a title gotten by afk-ing, which is obviously the case also with that method.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Songbringer

wat pvp titles dont have max? there is a legend champ legend hero legend glad? thats 3 pvp titles with a max....o and cobra commander the max rank in hb where is there not a max title???????

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Title look before u speak

I did. Go ahead max them, post a screenie when you do. You may also post a screenie of someone else having them at max level, talk to you in 3-4 years. Btw, the commander title has a note and says that it is a higher rank then listed in the test environment.

This was alredy pointed out to me, and I already responded that the max rank of those titles is laughable and not do-able. Ok, I'll concede that Gladiator might be doable with the changes coming to it.

Sorry, could not let the posting rage go unanswered.

Songbringer · Aug 21, 2007, 08:00 PM // 20:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Effendi Westland

It has been a while since I did those, and I guess my alliance wasn't the most efficient at doing them. My point was that it is mostly a title gotten by afk-ing, which is obviously the case also with that method.

I did. Go ahead max them, post a screenie when you do. You may also post a screenie of someone else having them at max level, talk to you in 3-4 years. Btw, the commander title has a note and says that it is a higher rank then listed in the test environment.

This was alredy pointed out to me, and I already responded that the max rank of those titles is laughable and not do-able. Ok, I'll concede that Gladiator might be doable with the changes coming to it.

Sorry, could not let the posting rage go unanswered.

i didnt say any1 had the max i said there r maxes to the title.....cant read muchless think can u

Fallen Angel Lust · Aug 22, 2007, 03:27 AM // 03:27

I have an idea for creating more maps. Each campaign released has new towns created. Why not expand a portion of each map so guilds can control the new towns and territory line? Then each new campaign released can bring a fresh set of maps.

I think the link between PvE and AB should end. I would prefer a new ranking system that I will call "Territory Battles" (TB) that actually reflects the time spent on the battle field. This new system would directly impact the quality of your guild hall.

The idea is that as you gain more territory a part of your guild hall would improve because of the taxes you are collecting. You start with a modest castle, and as your Territory Battle rank increases the castle gets a great hall added on, a weapons room, marble tiles, gold and gems. That way if you own a major town on the map then your guild hall reflects that.

Soon the emperor wants to move into your hall because it looks better than his palace.

Songbringer · Aug 22, 2007, 09:24 PM // 21:24

haha look at this

http://www.imagebam.com/image/ec72cd12000 dont mind the names i didnt take the pic

Songbringer · Aug 23, 2007, 08:15 PM // 20:15

fallen angel's idea sounds great id love to have my hall reflect my status with my allegiance to luxie or kurz (but maybe only if u have a factions gh) like if u have proph or nf hall idk if it should reflect or not since there not from same campaign either way guess it really doesnt matter.

I think that maybe they should take a little bit of everything from your guys idea's. Maybe make a donating title for pve if there going to stay connected but have 3 teams of 4 come together join and have like luxon points and kurzie (like glad points) (and make it a title) points and if ur team wins all 12 stay together next fight. If they win 10(or 5 if 10 is to much w/e) in a row (like ra and ta) they get a luxon point or kurzie point. also if u have a leaver and u still manage to win they can get replaced next match just like in ra when sum1 leaves the next match there is a replacement and maybe have a vote kick after the match is over like if sum1 *was noob* like brought 8 resses or sumthing or leeched only then they can have a min to vote kick them out in between matches dont let there be kicking any time.(thats if u even want vote kick i dont see it bieng that neccasary. If u made it so there was an actual decent title that ment sumthing to pvp'ers then they would b more reluctant to just pug it. they would have guild grps and exp players actually playing.

o btw /sign new maps.
I would like to see a map with siege turtles and juggernauts on it!!!!! instead of a dragon at saltspray beach maybe have it so..well let me explain easier... Say kurzie has it they should get like jug's patroling around and if luxons they should get like random siege turtle patrols. or make a whole new map. idk

Fallen Angel Lust · Aug 24, 2007, 02:57 PM // 14:57

I was visiting the Hall of Monuments and looking at the place where PvP titles would be displayed. It looks like rank 9 is the standard for when you get to log recognition for your monument. I saw mention of Hero titles and Gladiator titles, but I was disappointed that AB titles are ignored and will not be logged in the monuments.

Can someone confirm whether or not the AB title track will be logged to the monument?