Curse

Kaon · May 15, 2009, 10:50 AM // 10:50

I honestly cannot believe people are being nostalgic about the fetid crap that was VoD. If you're going to be nostalgic about it then do so about the 25/25% health and damage clausule that allowed you to kill someone in a single blow. Then post a movie like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYw5a60KtYg

theraven000 · May 15, 2009, 01:47 PM // 13:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaon

I honestly cannot believe people are being nostalgic about the fetid crap that was VoD. If you're going to be nostalgic about it then do so about the 25/25% health and damage clausule that allowed you to kill someone in a single blow. Then post a movie like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYw5a60KtYg

I think the comments on that vid were the better part.

tigros · May 15, 2009, 01:52 PM // 13:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by IMMORTAlMITCH

It's called PvP not PvNpcs, that you need to kill a guild lord fair enough, that people made entire builds around being able to farm the ball of NPCs better is simply retarded.

So, what's your point? That some of the ways to achieve a goal (kill npcs/guild lord or dp out your opponents) are ok and others are retarded? And let me guess, those aimed at dp-ing out players are ok (cause it's player skill and it's honorable) and those aimed at fast killing lord are retarded (cause it's pure luck and gimmicky)?

It's simply a matter of choice regarding playing style. You choose to face your opponent (8v8) or circumvent it and go straight for the base (split/gank). Both choices take player skill to succeed and I could even argue that tactical movement pushes and collapses are far more interesting than pure pressure or spike.

Just think about how most great wars throughout history were fought and won or lost. I know this is GW and not Sparta, but we do speak of honor, don't we?

Floski · May 15, 2009, 02:28 PM // 14:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by lutz

Randomness in competitive games should exist in very minute forms. 40/40 and 40/20 staffs make things incredibly unreliable and shouldn't even be in the game.

You say it and I agree of course, but I can't help thinking that randomness exists like, in every game, online or not, and that it just is. Maybe though, 40/40 is just way too much a randomness.

What about aegis and guardian in themselves though? 50% chance to block? I know some people who just always seem to hit through it. Is that too much randomness?

I don't know. How could they be changed though? Next 2 attacks are blocked for 5 seconds?

IMMORTAlMITCH · May 15, 2009, 02:39 PM // 14:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by tigros

So, what's your point? That some of the ways to achieve a goal (kill npcs/guild lord or dp out your opponents) are ok and others are retarded? And let me guess, those aimed at dp-ing out players are ok (cause it's player skill and it's honorable) and those aimed at fast killing lord are retarded (cause it's pure luck and gimmicky)?

It's simply a matter of choice regarding playing style. You choose to face your opponent (8v8) or circumvent it and go straight for the base (split/gank). Both choices take player skill to succeed and I could even argue that tactical movement pushes and collapses are far more interesting than pure pressure or spike.

Just think about how most great wars throughout history were fought and won or lost. I know this is GW and not Sparta, but we do speak of honor, don't we?

My point is that the game should be about players killing other players, if people are able to rely on keeping their NPCs alive better at VoD to win a match then as dishonorable as it might be I don't fault the players for it but I do think the game should be changed so that this isnt possible anymore.

And it has been.

Vanquisher · May 15, 2009, 05:18 PM // 17:18

Let's just remove all NPC's. All they do is act as a hinderance anyway. May as well remove the Flag too, it's a distraction from time we could just be killing each other.

Top idea.

some guy · May 15, 2009, 05:25 PM // 17:25

back then booprot and sb infuse were godly...

tigros · May 15, 2009, 06:05 PM // 18:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vanquisher

Let's just remove all NPC's. All they do is act as a hinderance anyway. May as well remove the Flag too, it's a distraction from time we could just be killing each other.

Top idea.

Yup, great idea. Make it 100% PvP, ditch all NPCs and let's play a hide and seek and destroy game

. This might turn it too much into a shooter type though...

Vanquisher · May 15, 2009, 06:10 PM // 18:10

No the game should be about killing the other players so anything that prevents that is bad. We should make defensive stuff like party healing and Wards and stuff terrible as well!

Kaon · May 15, 2009, 11:18 PM // 23:18

This game just needs zerglings, marines, and zealouts.

For Aiur!

IMMORTAlMITCH · May 15, 2009, 11:43 PM // 23:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vanquisher

No the game should be about killing the other players so anything that prevents that is bad. We should make defensive stuff like party healing and Wards and stuff terrible as well!

And bring back smiters as they were a very fun and and skillful template.

Edwards · May 16, 2009, 02:48 AM // 02:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by StManTiS

im not sure what you're getting at here? Both ways you kill people through high amounts of damage, one way they cant heal through it as fast. Also outputting large amounts of damage over a sustained period of time requires much more skill (energy management, skill choice, etc) than a lockout (press shutdown button, spike, win)

WE required skill choice and energy management? LC did/does? Sorry, but what game are you playing?

Quote:

They make the game more efficient, making it boring would be having healers heal for double what they heal now and raising the duration on guardian to 10 seconds.

More efficient? What does that have to do with fun?

Vanquisher · May 16, 2009, 06:55 AM // 06:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by IMMORTAlMITCH

And bring back smiters as they were a very fun and and skillful template.

Veiled insult aside, 2 questions to respond to that;
1) Was it active or passive?
2) What was the meta?

The simple fact is, when VoD was around, it functioned as a great end mechanic up until it was apparent NPCs could be balled and farmed. Now the question is; Why was that not fixed rather than the removal of the entire concept (which was actually a good end mechanic) and addition of another that is so terribly bad in terms of promoting good movement?

In addition to the terrible state of balance that this game is in that just compounds the issue, and what is seemingly short sightedness when looking at problems that may occur as a result of any balance updates, it's pretty obvious that the state of the game now and such changes have been for the worse.

StManTiS · May 16, 2009, 09:34 AM // 09:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edwards

WE required skill choice and energy management? LC did/does? Sorry, but what game are you playing?

So now you're arguing warriors take no skill? and that they used to take skill?
im not sure i get what you're saying here

Quote:

More efficient? What does that have to do with fun?

Well i'd say i have fun when things are intense. With constant pressure things are intense for the whole match, up until one team wins. In the olden days of yore as you describe them action happened in segments...

either as you get the same amount of fun, just one was you get more per hours. Hence efficiency and fun being related.

Vanquisher · May 16, 2009, 10:14 AM // 10:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by StManTiS

In the olden days of yore as you describe them action happened in segments...

This is wrong. Just because kills were more scarce, it doesn't mean action wasn't happening at all times. Just that there was a good offense/defence balance.

One of the biggest factors in the change in direction the game has taken (one away from wanting defensive characters to be able to keep up with the sort of offense that is churned out) is ArenaNets wish to keep games interesting to observers. While matches, particularly for defensive roles, were very much about making sure you didn't die, various balances were implemented to make deaths more frequent.

Personally I think that's an poor mantra because, if we look at it, one of the fundamental archetypes of play is splitting. However, splitting is (was) a longer-term strategy to accomplish goals. What I believe needs to happen is a much longer down time between spikes, a reduction in terms of healing power, and tweaks to consistent damage type of builds (nerfs to interrupts, skills like LC, and slight buffs to party healing would sufficiently fix this).

However, a redesigned end game mechanic would also need to be implemented. Lord damage is poor, VoD had flaws. The fact you can kill a Guild Lord so quickly early on in a match now is also a pretty bad damage limiter.

But when the goal is not to have any form of balanced play because it's not interesting enough and some would consider it boring, it's never going to happen. Too bad.

Kaon · May 16, 2009, 10:36 AM // 10:36

Also, back then you had your 3 res sigs with your shitty hard res and that's it. After 4-5 deaths you'd be taken out. Deaths were so much more important, so the game got a lot more intense.

IMMORTAlMITCH · May 16, 2009, 10:41 AM // 10:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vanquisher

Veiled insult aside, 2 questions to respond to that;
1) Was it active or passive?
2) What was the meta?

Active smiting was bad too, AoE smiters were pretty mindless too (triple smite anyone?)

Quote:

The simple fact is, when VoD was around, it functioned as a great end mechanic up until it was apparent NPCs could be balled and farmed. Now the question is; Why was that not fixed rather than the removal of the entire concept (which was actually a good end mechanic) and addition of another that is so terribly bad in terms of promoting good movement?

I never liked that the game turned into 'farm each others NPCs as fast as possible' that's even unrelated to them balling or not, the team that will keep their NPCs up longer is very likely to win the stand fight and that promotes defensive builds.

If the lord wouldn't walk or if there was more time between the NPCs walking and the lord walking (not 18min NPCs 20 min Lord) this might not be that much of an issue, but you're forgetting that GW neevr used to have a tiebreaker as there was no time limit for matches, with ATs such a limit is required and as such a tiebreaker is desirable.

Quote:

In addition to the terrible state of balance that this game is in that just compounds the issue, and what is seemingly short sightedness when looking at problems that may occur as a result of any balance updates, it's pretty obvious that the state of the game now and such changes have been for the worse.

The balance state isn't that terrible atm, we still have to wait and see what the meta turns out to be but sofar I'm quite liking it.

Vanquisher · May 16, 2009, 03:32 PM // 15:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by IMMORTAlMITCH

Active smiting was bad too, AoE smiters were pretty mindless too (triple smite anyone?)

And what about single smite? The fact triple smite was ridiculously strong is exactly the same problem that this game has when it comes to most other skills - especially defensive ones. Take Aegis as an example. It gets better as more copies are taken. Party healing likewise. Searing Flames, Discord, etc.

What really gets me here though, is you arguing that a template not anywhere close to imbalanced, that required active and intelligent play was bad for the game? You can argue it's a spam template but I'm pretty sure that people who weren't retarded generally used it as a defensive character and acted more like a Monk than anything else, just as with any other defensive midliner. I know the main reason we ran it was because it got past MH's blackout chain.

Quote:

I never liked that the game turned into 'farm each others NPCs as fast as possible' that's even unrelated to them balling or not, the team that will keep their NPCs up longer is very likely to win the stand fight and that promotes defensive builds.

If the lord wouldn't walk or if there was more time between the NPCs walking and the lord walking (not 18min NPCs 20 min Lord) this might not be that much of an issue, but you're forgetting that GW neevr used to have a tiebreaker as there was no time limit for matches, with ATs such a limit is required and as such a tiebreaker is desirable.

And VoD, when first implemented, had no Lord walking, which was the best way. Like I said at the time, caps on timer to prematurely end matches were retarded. The fact that they were put in place purely to make games more entertaining to watch is worse. If there is a requirement for a time limit, just say that after so long it's a draw. Then teams won't be motivated to run mass defence because you know, winning will mean they have to kill.

It's the same reasoning VoD then was alright. People weren't motivated to run defensive builds because rating was required to qualifying for tournaments. It was against peoples interests to sit around for 30 minutes and wait, when you could play a lot more games in that amount of time.

NPCs playing more of a role doesn't just promote defensive builds. It promotes splitting and more tactical play. That defensive builds can actually beat split builds in the long game is more an issue with skill balance than anything else.

Quote:

The balance state isn't that terrible atm, we still have to wait and see what the meta turns out to be but sofar I'm quite liking it.

No, the balance is terrible. The meta might be somewhat alright, but the balance is poor.

StManTiS · May 16, 2009, 05:21 PM // 17:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vanquisher

This is wrong. Just because kills were more scarce, it doesn't mean action wasn't happening at all times. Just that there was a good offense/defence balance.

One of the biggest factors in the change in direction the game has taken (one away from wanting defensive characters to be able to keep up with the sort of offense that is churned out) is ArenaNets wish to keep games interesting to observers. While matches, particularly for defensive roles, were very much about making sure you didn't die, various balances were implemented to make deaths more frequent.

Personally I think that's an poor mantra because, if we look at it, one of the fundamental archetypes of play is splitting. However, splitting is (was) a longer-term strategy to accomplish goals. What I believe needs to happen is a much longer down time between spikes, a reduction in terms of healing power, and tweaks to consistent damage type of builds (nerfs to interrupts, skills like LC, and slight buffs to party healing would sufficiently fix this).

However, a redesigned end game mechanic would also need to be implemented. Lord damage is poor, VoD had flaws. The fact you can kill a Guild Lord so quickly early on in a match now is also a pretty bad damage limiter.

But when the goal is not to have any form of balanced play because it's not interesting enough and some would consider it boring, it's never going to happen. Too bad.

i must say i agree that guild lords do die too damn quickly...however the damage is fine in arenas, its makes them faster (also in RA those bad teams end faster)

Kaon · May 16, 2009, 11:38 PM // 23:38

VoD without the lord walking would be absolutely terrible. We'd have EP vs PrP issues all the RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GOing time, no match would ever end.