 |
|
Nov 05, 2006, 08:43 PM // 20:43
|
#21 |
|
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2006
Profession: R/W
|
This is a redundant and biased compilation of points made elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
Nov 05, 2006, 08:57 PM // 20:57
|
#22 | |
|
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2005
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 05, 2006, 09:00 PM // 21:00
|
#23 | |
|
Ascalonian Squire
Join Date: Nov 2006
Guild: Lose Your Nerve
Profession: Mo/W
|
Quote:
What you are describing is a P/E vs P/E type of game. Yes.. people may whine about this on and on, but what would it have been like if Heroes were to never be released. Those who currently have Heroes would whine about not being able to HA often. Heroes is just an excuse to get into HA and to have ranks under their name. And to complain about not being able to join a group because of not having rank is also just an excuse. Players originally started out all the same, as newbies. They eventually had to work their way up to that rank. Just because you, or others got the game late does not mean you should be just as equal as those who played since the beginning. Yes this may seem unfair, but its also reality. (Thanks to those who had this view and Posted) |
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 05, 2006, 10:00 PM // 22:00
|
#24 |
|
Krytan Explorer
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Liverpool
Profession: Mo/
|
/signed
Or even limit number of hero's/henchmen to 2 per party. |
|
|
|
|
Nov 05, 2006, 10:02 PM // 22:02
|
#25 | |||
|
Krytan Explorer
Join Date: Mar 2006
Profession: E/
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
|
|
|
|
Nov 05, 2006, 10:43 PM // 22:43
|
#26 |
|
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Europe
Guild: Guardians Of Eternal Sands [GoeS]
Profession: W/
|
well not signed. I, rank 0, want fame too :P
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 06, 2006, 12:25 AM // 00:25
|
#27 | |
|
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2006
Profession: R/W
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 06, 2006, 01:27 AM // 01:27
|
#28 | |
|
Krytan Explorer
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Lower Ward, Sigil
Guild: Goda Vos
|
/signed
Quote:
Heroes should be limited to hero battles only. |
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 06, 2006, 01:41 AM // 01:41
|
#29 | |
|
Frost Gate Guardian
Join Date: Oct 2006
Guild: Rebel Rising [rawr]
Profession: A/E
|
I personaly used to play HA for its competetive nature. I truely enjoyed playing some of the top tier HA guilds everyday and having really great matches win or lose. It was a place to pit my teams skills vs the other teams skill. it was a place where map tactics, movement, and positioning were key to winning.
Heroway has destroyed the competetivness of hero's acsent. There are now much fewer "feared" teams in HA to truely compete with. I miss having matches with [Math], [SWIM], and [ugly] that were extremly challenging and required real strategy to win. One arguemnet people seem to be having is that If you cant beat them stop whining. This has no valid point. Everyone takes losses to heroway, but the Win/Loss ratio usually favors the winning side. Lately Heroway's have been inciting ganks against non-heroway teams because it just may be the only way they can win. Quote:
I understand some people just want thier deer, but even without heros and worst case scenario it's 180 underworld wins. This is not that difficult. So after my rant a BIG /signed |
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 06, 2006, 01:46 AM // 01:46
|
#30 |
|
Krytan Explorer
Join Date: Jun 2006
|
Well I just go interested in this and tried HA with Heroes. I did to stages then lost and got 1 fame which is pretty good. But I can't get in a group because I dont have Rank 3+, wtf? If you only let Rank 3+ in a group how do you except new people to play. Don't say oh you have to work your way up because thats bull. You HA people don't give us a chance. How can we work our way up if we don't get to play. With Heroes we can work our way up getting 1 fame a run until we can get Rank 3 where people might actually let us in a group. If you all were more accepting and didn't say "0mFg j00 4r3nt r4nk 3, h4ha j0ou c4tn join" then the people that use heroes would be in your group and not Hero-Henchwaying. Yes there would be still be some people to Hero but not as much if everyone was accept. Now I do agree that if someone isn't the rank you want you can ask them questions to make sure they know how to play the assigned build but give them a chance don't just kick them for not being "elite".
Thats be two bits. |
|
|
|
|
Nov 06, 2006, 01:59 AM // 01:59
|
#31 |
|
Wark!!!
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Florida
Profession: W/
|
/not signed
Heroway is a great way to learn some of the maps and common builds in PvP and get your feet wet. To be honest, in terms of "fame farming" the only difference between heroway and IWAY is that you had to get 7 other people for IWAY. If people want to try it out let them. As far as we know, ANet probably *planned* on people bringing heroes into PvP. Other reasons to keep heroway: 1. AI is sometimes better than the pugs you'll find 2. You might not always be able to find enough people of the right class if you have a specific build in mind. 3. This will encourage originality; you and a friend can try out builds to get the kinks worked out before having their friends play it. 4. This will introduce people to HA and help them start getting connections so teams and guilds will pick them up if they do well 5. Not everyone has Nightfall 6. Not everyone has VoIP to do well in PvP. 7. Because if you get rid of this, another farming build will come up to be nerfed later. 8. A lot of teams don't want people under rank 3 in pvp |
|
|
|
|
Nov 06, 2006, 02:00 AM // 02:00
|
#32 | |
|
Academy Page
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Venezuela
Guild: Lord
|
Quote:
"1. AI is sometimes better than the pugs you'll find" The OP is asking to LIMIT the ammount of heroes allowed in. "2. You might not always be able to find enough people of the right class if you have a specific build in mind." See answer to 1 "3. This will encourage originality; you and a friend can try out builds to get the kinks worked out before having their friends play it." See answer to 1. Originality? Sure you can make a creative build, but you're still running it with AI. "4. This will introduce people to HA and help them start getting connections so teams and guilds will pick them up if they do well" How do you expect them to get connections if all they do is heroway? And since pretty much all decent teams and guilds roll over them, hardly an impressive show. "5. Not everyone has Nightfall" And? "6. Not everyone has VoIP to do well in PvP." VoIP is hardly difficult to get. "7. Because if you get rid of this, another farming build will come up to be nerfed later." So what, it'll be nerfed so it's balanced, point. "8. A lot of teams don't want people under rank 3 in pvp" See first paragraph. Last edited by Fabius Cunctator; Nov 06, 2006 at 02:07 AM // 02:07.. |
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 06, 2006, 02:02 AM // 02:02
|
#33 | |
|
Desert Nomad
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Singapore
Guild: Seers of Serpents [SoS]
Profession: R/
|
Quote:
/not signed. |
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 06, 2006, 02:18 AM // 02:18
|
#34 |
|
Jungle Guide
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Belgium
Guild: [FaRM] Farm For The Win
Profession: N/
|
I'm not a PvP'er at all and never will be but i see some thruth in the OP's post.
I can only agree with removing heroes from any PvP orientated battle apart from Hero Battles of course. That's not what the gametype is about and it should very well never be like this Period. PvP stand for just that. |
|
|
|
|
Nov 06, 2006, 02:50 AM // 02:50
|
#35 | |
|
Jungle Guide
Join Date: Sep 2005
Profession: Mo/Me
|
Quote:
At the moment the chances of me taking a Rank 3 player are about zero, precisely because people like you are heroing your way there. It's nothing to do with being elitist, it's just it's fun to win and fame (while a flawed mechanism) is the best way to measure your skill. |
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 06, 2006, 03:20 AM // 03:20
|
#36 | ||||||
|
Krytan Explorer
Join Date: Mar 2006
Profession: E/
|
Quote:
While it may be biased I at least tried to meet in the middle with the whole 50% players things... but hey I'm trying to sell a point here. When the politicians want you to vote for them do you think they give an unbiased stance? Of course not. If someone wants to prove their point right there will ALWAYS be bias. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
1. Fair enough. But thats why you don't get pugs if you want a good team, good teams come from the friends/guild lists 2. I'm not asking to completely remove heroes. I'm asking to limit it to no more than 50% of the team. If you can't get 2 other players, you shouldn't be playing... Like I said GW is a team game if you don't want to play as a team I'd be more than glad to recommend you some single player games that are vastly superior to GW, one example being Okami for PS2. Damn, that game owns... 3. Thats what that place outside of Great Temple of Balthazar is for, to test things. And if you want to actually test it out in real HA, like I said in last point its not hard to get 2 other players... 4. LOL? Connections? I hope this was a joke. What connections are they gonna get? Acolyte Jin PMing them for r-spike? You play with real groups to get connections, see Mr Seph's post I quoted in first post. 5. What are you getting at here? You can join real groups without owning NF... 6. Voice comm is very important in pvp and helps with the whole team work aspect. Again, if you don't like team-based games I can recommend you some great single player games to play instead of GW. 7. So...? Better than fighting dumb AI over and over... 8. A lot of teams don't want below r3, but guess what some teams do or you can make your own team with other people who aren't r3+ too... Do you think everyone but you started at r3+? Definately not... Last edited by Yunas Ele; Nov 06, 2006 at 03:26 AM // 03:26.. |
||||||
|
|
|
|
Nov 06, 2006, 05:40 AM // 05:40
|
#37 |
|
Desert Nomad
Join Date: Mar 2006
Guild: The Benecia Renovatio [RenO]
Profession: Mo/
|
/signed
Heroes' Ascent has absolutly no chance to ever be considered a competitive PvP area as-is. Restrict NPCs such as Heroes and Henchmen to 50% of a team, if not to 33% of a team. From what I can gather, the 6 vs 6 change was made to freshen up Heroes' Ascent, make it more competitive and easier for new players to form a group. The introduction of Heroes' defeats that change. Heroes' promote a fairly stagnent metagame. They promote a focus on beating bad teams and doing so quickly, instead of beating good teams and winning. The only 'positive' is new players can get a group very easily now! Too bad they're not really improving themselves as a player by playing with NPCs, against NPCs, and only playing to farm fame, not to win. If ANET wants Heroes' Ascnet to remain competitive, and fun, they absolutly need to restrict the amount of Heroes in a party. |
|
|
|
|
Nov 06, 2006, 05:49 AM // 05:49
|
#38 |
|
Frost Gate Guardian
Join Date: Nov 2006
|
I think heroes should be removed from both HA and TA. Why? If I wanted to fight AI I would run the Zaishan over and over or go PvE. Heros just ruin what HA is supposed to be. I remember back when nobody ever took henchmen or even thought of it into Tombs. Yes thats right, back when Hall of Heroes was in tombs. All people do now is run heroes or henchmen. I would prefer to have the 8v8 HA back with no heroes or henchmen.
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 06, 2006, 06:07 AM // 06:07
|
#39 |
|
Academy Page
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: CHICO
Guild: Axes Of Evil [AoE]
Profession: N/
|
I don't even HA that much but what little desire I had to play it died when I started seeing heros in HA.
/signed |
|
|
|
|
Nov 06, 2006, 06:35 AM // 06:35
|
#40 |
|
Frost Gate Guardian
Join Date: May 2006
|
On the topic of heroes and HA (or PvP in general) I think there are a variety of points both for and against that need consideration. I think I can show that the arguments for heroes are flawed in aspect, and that the argument for their removal is strong. Before we begin, I think it important to note that heroes are not in and of themselves the main problem with HA. Not even one of the main problems. However, it is a problem (or at least an issue) which there is some potential to fix. As such, it should be adressed on its own merit.
The main arguments for heroes seem to revolve around the notion of accessibility. The idea is apparent in several arguments: that a person can not worry about finding a group in general, or that a person can avoid the rank restriction by using heroes. They both revolve around the notion of a person being more easily able to access HA. My question to these arguments is simple: what is the inherent value in accessibility? I claim that there is no such value. Accessibility is only valuable insofar as it applies to something of worth. Let me give an example. Suppose I created a zone that was accessible upon creating your character. In this zone you randomly die between 0 and 5 minutes of entering. There is nothing otherwise in this zone except yourself and the map. Would you consider this zone a good thing? I think it somewhat obvious that a person would not. This zone is more accessible than any other in the game, but the accessibility is meaningless because the object accessed has no worth. Acessibility therefore is a function of value, not a precursor. Were I to make my zone challenging and rewarding, I think most people would agree that the accessibility drastically improves my zone over, say, the current Factions elite missions. The elite missions are relatively inaccessible for the vast majority of the populace and this has been a point of contention for some time. If we take the above then, it seems the basic premise of the argument for heroes is in serious danger. If it can be shown that heroes severely reduce the quality of HA, it appears that their accessibility argument is invalidated. I think it somewhat apparent that the quality of the arena has been reduced, but I will go through the analysis in case others do not agree. The first issue is that of the nature of the arena. Heroes Ascent (despite the name) is intended as a PvP arena. With that distinction comes a few qualifications. One of these is the notion of player v player combat. That is, people fighting people. It goes almost without saying that Heroes contradict this notion. After all, per definition they are not people or players and therefore you do not have scenarios of player v player combat. Instead you have player v computer combat which is simply different. A closer analog to this sort of gaming is PvE, where you have Player v Environment. As the environment is controlled by the computer, it seems that we have these two things identically. Now, this is a form of reduction in quality. Namely, you are reducing one form of gaming into another, diluting the former. In the same way that a person could reduce the quality of say, a brick of gold by smelting it with tin. The second issue is in the value of experience. That is, is the experience gained on the part of the hero user greater than it would be if that person used pugs? I think the answer is a clear no, since heroes do not communicate. A hero cannot tell you a proposed strategy for a map. A hero cannot critique your build. A hero cannot communicate to the player in any way. In fact, heros are so poor at communication it was necessary to institute a special menu that allowed the player to see directly for himself the state of the hero's energy, health, and skillstate. The other option is pugs. Pugs can certainly communicate all of the above, and in fact probably will whether you like it or not. Often loudly with poor grammar. And as much poor advice as you'll invariably get, poor advice is better than no advice. Poor advice at the very least makes you think over your decisions and explain them to the poor advice giver. That sort of reiterated thought is extremely valuable for refining builds and strategies. The lack of this then is a clear reduction in quality. The other argument which I feel I should make note of is the, "You're just mad that you can't beat heroes!" argument. I make note of this not because this argument has any merit, but because it seems to be so prevalent that I think the community could benefit from knowing precisely why it is so poor. There are two main reasons this statment fails as an argument. The first is that it is based on an unsound premise, and the second is that the entire line of reasoning is logically invalid. Validity in logic means that is the premises are true, then in virtue of this the conclusion must be true as well. The argumentation of, "You're just mad!" does not meet this criterion. Even if it were true that the people who are arguing against heroes are merely mad that they cannot win against them, all this shows is what motivates these people to post. It in no way changes the authority of the arguments presented. Arguments rest on their own merit, not on the merit of their speaker. To give an exaggerated and thus more easily seen example, suppose that I was arguing that 2+2=4. Suppose then that Hitler was also arguing that 2+2=4. Now, if the quality of the person giving the argument were relevant to the argument itself, it would follow that 2+2=4 only when I said it, because Hitler being bad invalidated the position. How absurd! Regardless of who gives an argument, the argument stands on its own merit. The soundness objection is epistimelogical. That is, the unqualifed assumption in the attack is that the posters against heroes have consistently lost to them. But, how precisely do we know this is the case? It seems like this is an empitical assessment. That is, it is a statement which is verifiable through observation. If this is true then the only way such an assertion could be made soundly is if the observation had actually been carried out. I defy a single proponent of this argumentation type to come forward with evidence that they have carried out this action. I rather suspect there will be none. There are of course other issues, but I think with these solidly presented there isn't any need to go into any others. With the arguments for heroes dismissed from consideration then (subject to rebuttal of course) we can turn to the arguments for their removal. The arguments against heroes function around two points. The first is a quality point and the second is an enjoyment point. Luckily for us, the quality argument has already been given in rebuttal to the accessibility argument of the pro-hero community. I will instead focus on the enjoyment argument. It is important to note that this argument has several subjective basis to it, and so there may be people who contest various elements of it. Overall however I think the claims I will make to be true and so I will ignore the varous outliers. The argument of enjoyment basically works in this way: The anti-hero crowd is of a position that playing heroway is not fun. If they win they cannot feel accomplished in defeating a computer, and if they lose they are demoralized after losing to one. I think the latter case unarguably true. It is simply a fact that people are smarter than computers are. Therefore if you lose to a computer in an equal environment you probably won't be very happy. The first case I think needs clarification. After all, the entire premise of PvE is based around people enjoying defeating computers. Clearly, as people play PvE, you can in fact feel accomplished fighting a computer. The distinction between the events is of their nature, I think. That is, a PvE player can feel accomplishment in defeating a computer because in PvE the computer cheats (it is not on an equal playing field) and defeating the computer has story-value. The same is not true of the PvP format. PvP is by nature (in any viable PvP game) a direct competition on an equal playing field. Computers simply cannot approach the level of ability that even a bad person brings to the arena. Further, I make the claim that there is inherent value in fighting a player over fighting a computer. That is, if all other variables are kept constant, a player would rather fight another person than a computer. In this sense then there is a direct connection between enjoyment or "fun" and fighting people versus computers. With the above asserted, it follows quite simply that the arguments against heros are strong whereas the arguments for them are misguided in a variety of fashions. The only recourse seems to be the removal of heroes (and assorted other NPCs) from the playing field. |
|
|
|
 |
|
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 11:21 AM // 11:21.
jQuery(document).ready(checkAds()); function checkAds(){if (document.getElementById('adsense')!=undefined){document.write("_gaq.push(['_trackEvent', 'Adblock', 'Unblocked', 'false',,true]);");}else{document.write("