Curse

suiraCLAW · Aug 18, 2008, 10:02 PM // 22:02

I edited my post exactly because of that: because I was afraid of being misunderstood.

What I mean(t) is that you can still see both strategies and that one is not dominant - so we have more variation in play. I do agree that splitplay emphasis strategy skill and that it should be viable. And a big part of that strategy is to decide when to start a split, a part that would be taken away if 8v8 wasn't viable at all anymore.
To resume: both plays are viable and I'm happy about it.

erk · Aug 18, 2008, 11:34 PM // 23:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by DutchSmurf

You have seen different matches then me then. I only watch matches between high ranked guilds and those were all 8vs8, even on Frozen. So far I've only seen 1 guild trying to split and those weren't really successful against good guilds. With the npc farming (most of all with the mesmers) there was far more movement then now. Of course in both cases nothing happens, but still.

It's mostly 8v8 in my timezone, I played quite a few games on Saturday night, and I think one rank 300+ team sent off a solo shadow form sin (which I have never seen in GvG before!) to try and get some damage on the lord, that's it, the rest were 8v8. It felt like HA, there was even an EoE bomb rank 600+ team.

Lorekeeper · Aug 20, 2008, 02:32 PM // 14:32

I am not a fan of these last minute suicide rushes to the guild lord where monks are wanding to get extra damage, it just doesnt feel right.

Nothing really changes in GvG that makes the guild lord more vulnerable at any point, yet the tiebreaker condition creates this completely arbitrary moment where suddenly teams are worried about putting damage on an NPC that has had next to zero impact on the match. In some ways, the first 25min can be completely meaningless since the true outcome of the match depends on who does the most damage to the lord at the end... of course unless someone manages to pile on some damage in those 25min.

another alternative is to introduce a points system to GvG, with points being awarded to each team for achieving a range of objectives.

eg

player kill: 2 points
npc kill: 1 point
bodyguard kill: 2 points
morale boost: 3 points
inflict X amount of health loss on enemy guild lord: 5 points
player 60dp: 5 points
guild lord death: 100 points

something like that... in that way almost every meaningful achievement in the GvG contributes to the overall outcome of the match.

disclaimer - obviously my numbers are there just as guidance

points counter would be needed obviously!!!

just a suggestion of mine

Neo-LD · Aug 20, 2008, 03:05 PM // 15:05

Actually, Lorekeeper, I think thats a pretty neat idea. Maybe I've been playing to much Company of Heroes lately, but I think it would work even better as a ticket system. Start with some number of tickets, lose them as enemies accomplish things, first guild to reach 0 tickets loses. Same type of deal:

Player dies: lose X tickets
NPC dies: lose Y tickets

Reward damage on Guild Lord by making the GL's regen rate cost tickets

GL 5% regenerated: lose Z tickets
GL dies: lose all tickets

Morale boost restores N tickets

As recommendation, N > Z > X > Y

Of course, the whole ticket concept is probably the intellectual property of EA and/or Relic, and so this probably wont happen

Tearz1993 · Aug 20, 2008, 03:09 PM // 15:09

People don't strictly run 8v8 builds anymore. They just can't split very strongly with balanced unless they do a 3 man split, so builds are starting to separate from each other, one side being 8v8 and the other being a dedicated split.

Also, the dual ele split is becoming popular again in late american times. Not sure about any other time.

Although, you know something wrong when your strategy is to use esurge on their lord, even though the bodyguard is up, to win a tiebreaker.

Snow Bunny · Aug 20, 2008, 04:53 PM // 16:53

28 timer is pissing me off. team last night split a ranger as they were wiping at the 26:30 mark, who promptly fired off 1 incendiary arrow onto our lord, and died.

Burton2000 · Aug 20, 2008, 05:39 PM // 17:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snow Bunny

28 timer is pissing me off. team last night split a ranger as they were wiping at the 26:30 mark, who promptly fired off 1 incendiary arrow onto our lord, and died.

Well why didn't you stop him or send something of your team to hit their lord as well?

Snow Bunny · Aug 20, 2008, 05:47 PM // 17:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burton2000

Well why didn't you stop him or send something of your team to hit their lord as well?

Meh. We were 8v8ing them and it took forever to break through blurred, blind, and a smiter. We were too concentrated on breaking them at stand and he slipped out.

It was our error to be technical, but a tiny sliver of damage on the lord shouldn't decide a game that was largely ours. If they had full-ganked the lord and killed the lord, that'd be one thing. But the fraction of damage he put out shouldn't decide a game.

We've won several games recently that we didn't deserve in any sense; we employed the same tactic in several matches and won with that. It's a stupid mechanic.

Barbie goes guru · Aug 20, 2008, 06:12 PM // 18:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snow Bunny

Meh. We were 8v8ing them and it took forever to break through blurred, blind, and a smiter. We were too concentrated on breaking them at stand and he slipped out.

It was our error to be technical, but a tiny sliver of damage on the lord shouldn't decide a game that was largely ours. If they had full-ganked the lord and killed the lord, that'd be one thing. But the fraction of damage he put out shouldn't decide a game.

So if i've understood your post. at 28 minutes you lost because a lone ranger used inc arrows once on your guildlord because you were fighting at the stand?

were you valiantly fighting for a draw? did you not at any point during the match decide to inflict ANY DAMAGE WHATSOEVER upon the enemy lord? if the game was 'largely yours' surely you were in a better position to accomplish the objective.

its one thing to say a game mechanic is bad, but quite another to blame that mechanic when you should really blame the fact you are abysmal tactically.

Tab · Aug 20, 2008, 06:21 PM // 18:21

just run petsmite

Snow Bunny · Aug 20, 2008, 06:24 PM // 18:24

meh it's not worth arguing about. I'll just call it a RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GOup on our part and be done with it.

DreamWind · Aug 21, 2008, 06:19 AM // 06:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barbie goes guru

its one thing to say a game mechanic is bad, but quite another to blame that mechanic when you should really blame the fact you are abysmal tactically.

Its another thing to say his tactics are bad when he is being forced to adapt to abysmal mechanics.

Cass · Aug 21, 2008, 09:19 AM // 09:19

Perhaps it was poor tactics to let that ranger 'ping' their lord. However, the point stands that an extremely trivial attack decided that match. I agree that the mechanic is stupid. Plus, as I argued before, the inability to see the precise amount of damage taken makes it even more stupid.

Replace this by a transparent, sensible mechanic. Like the idea of the archers escorting the lord, if you killed some of theirs.

erk · Aug 22, 2008, 04:11 AM // 04:11

In RA/TA the tie breaker is what team has the highest total morale wins. That's not a bad method, but it takes away reason to attack the lord. I reckon that if a game goes for 28min then it was too even and should be declared a draw with neither side winning or loosing and rating. Obviously that won't work for the mAT final which will need some other system for a clear winner.

IMMORTAlMITCH · Aug 22, 2008, 11:48 AM // 11:48

If both teams run a defensive build and just 8v8 each other all game while ferrying flags, it's your own RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GOing fault if you lose because of the tiebreaker.

The current tiebreaker forces people to take action rather than wait for 18-20 minutes until the game takes the action for them.

I'm not saying the tiebreaker is ideal, or even good, but if you're just playing 8v8 for 28 minutes and then lose cause they hit your lord once it's really your own fault you lost.

Snow Bunny · Aug 22, 2008, 04:18 PM // 16:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by IMMORTAlMITCH

If both teams run a defensive build and just 8v8 each other all game while ferrying flags, it's your own RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GOing fault if you lose because of the tiebreaker.

The current tiebreaker forces people to take action rather than wait for 18-20 minutes until the game takes the action for them.

I'm not saying the tiebreaker is ideal, or even good, but if you're just playing 8v8 for 28 minutes and then lose cause they hit your lord once it's really your own fault you lost.

I already admitted it was our error, and that we RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GOed up and it was our fault. It doesn't change the fact that it's a pretty bad way to decide things.

There's got to be better ways of making a tie-breaker.

Kaon · Aug 24, 2008, 11:01 PM // 23:01

You make the mistake of posting a thread on a forum where criticizing is not allowed and all intelligent members got banned from ages ago.

On topic: Welcome to guild wars, where small problems get solved by throwing a giant atomic bomb at it in vain hoping it will not cause any collateral damage.

W I C K E D · Aug 25, 2008, 10:09 PM // 22:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaon

You make the mistake of posting a thread on a forum where criticizing is not allowed and all intelligent members got banned from ages ago.

On topic: Welcome to guild wars, where small problems get solved by throwing a giant atomic bomb at it in vain hoping it will not cause any collateral damage.

that post just made my day

thx kaon

Alleji · Aug 26, 2008, 01:47 AM // 01:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo-LD

Of course, the whole ticket concept is probably the intellectual property of EA and/or Relic, and so this probably wont happen

WoW uses what you described (in Alterac Valley) except they're not called tickets, so I guess it would be fair game for GW too.

erk · Aug 26, 2008, 03:18 AM // 03:18

What happens if you hit the 28min mark and neither Guild Lord has received any damage cause both teams have been only fighting at the stand, is it a draw? Anyone tested it in a scrim?