Curse

Death_From_Above · Jul 02, 2007, 04:30 PM // 16:30

Lorekeeper, as i said before. You want anet to work on these new mechanics which absolutly suck when the alter map mechanics owned hardcore and to be honest i find very few flaws in it. Would it not be easier to work on the older alter map mechanics than the new ones being less needs to be done to perfect them though i already think they were perfected. Also, anet have spent 12 months messing us around, im no longer intrested in getting a halls which is better than alter holding for now im just intrested in having HA viable meaning you can actually play the dam game. As i said again and again and again which you obviously have not commented on. Anet have shown they do not want to spend much time on halls and do not intend to. Therefore it seems much wiser to just put it back to altar capping. Something that works, rather than messing us around for another year in which by then gw2 would be out. You seem to have gone out of your depth here, 70 percent want kill count gone for good. Yet you insist it should remain. Ye nice way to kill HA even more.

Just to illistrate, do you exactly know how much 70 percent is? That basically is like saying 30 percent want some form of kill count and 70 dont. Thats a huge white wash. And remember theres 4 options here. I would say thats just disgusting in telling us get rid of the dam thing. Dont bother waste your time working on a seriously flawed mechanic *aka kill count* when you can use that time on something else which will give you more *alter maps.*

Shmanka · Jul 02, 2007, 04:55 PM // 16:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Takida

Just nerf cg then if it will be 2 overpowered, Rather have a skill nerf then keep on with this bullshit..
Nerf skills, dont change the mechanics

Seriously it was nothing wrong with the old mechanics

In all honesty, is this a complete joke? Did you actually suggest most likely nerfing over 150 skills simply because you want old altar holding? Simple mechanic change, or overhaul of the game... not to mention those skills would become near completely useless in every other form of PvE and PvP if you had it your way.

This is the kind of simple thinking people do not have. Does the word "reasonable" even come across anyones mind when they read these things? You would be nerfing so many skills and balance team would be in there for weeks (not like it takes a good chunk of time anyway already, no offence but I think someone is taking an extra coffee break in your staff).

Btw thank you Ensign for shining some light on this dim thread, and I even understand your hate for relic run, it was us who body blocked your runner with the other team a few weeks back. I also noticed you put your snare on the defending team which led our team to win. It was a victory but based on opposing tactics from other parties, you can get completely screwed. There is a science to the entire relic runs, although there is more of a gank problem here then KC IMO. Personal question, your posts are usually well done and detailed, do you have some kind of English degree?

Lorekeeper · Jul 02, 2007, 04:56 PM // 16:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Death_From_Above

Lorekeeper, as i said before. You want anet to work on these new mechanics which absolutly suck when the alter map mechanics owned hardcore and to be honest i find very few flaws in it. Would it not be easier to work on the older alter map mechanics than the new ones being less needs to be done to perfect them though i already think they were perfected. Also, anet have spent 12 months messing us around, im no longer intrested in getting a halls which is better than alter holding for now im just intrested in having HA viable meaning you can actually play the dam game. As i said again and again and again which you obviously have not commented on. Anet have shown they do not want to spend much time on halls and do not intend to. Therefore it seems much wiser to just put it back to altar capping. Something that works, rather than messing us around for another year in which by then gw2 would be out. You seem to have gone out of your depth here, 70 percent want kill count gone for good. Yet you insist it should remain. Ye nice way to kill HA even more.

Just to illistrate, do you exactly know how much 70 percent is? That basically is like saying 30 percent want some form of kill count and 70 dont. Thats a huge white wash. And remember theres 4 options here. I would say thats just disgusting in telling us get rid of the dam thing. Dont bother waste your time working on a seriously flawed mechanic *aka kill count* when you can use that time on something else which will give you more *alter maps.*

im gonna write in bullet points to the above poster... full paragraphs are a waste of my time...

*posting that something sucks and something owns hardcore is not a viable method of persuading people that your point of view has any merit. For some reason you continually claim to find no flaws in something regardless of the countless posts i and others have made pointing out otherwise. In that case do you want Anet to design the game around YOUR personal wants and needs?

*you find very few flaws in the old style altar capping yet you have not yet shown any ability to tackle the concerns that many including myself have posted about it. All you seem able to do is say that it owned, so far you have done nothing to argue your case. Whereas plenty of arguments have been put forward to say that the although the existing mechanics arent perfect the older ones were broken too. Its worse than the 8vs8 vs 6vs6 debates... at least both sides of that argument actually bothered to support their claims.

*in my last post i think i showed how the new king of the hill system has in many ways adequately replaced the older system. With a few tweaks needed. Address those points and you MAY have a case for the old style being better. If you can argue that the new king of the hill mechanic is worse... do so.

*HA is ''playable'' if you can stand it, it is possible to win with balanced builds... its just very hard and takes alot of patience; there are several teams and guilds doing so. So HA is not as messed up as you seem to be crying about. Just because you dont have the patience and perserverence to succeed running a difficult build doesnt mean HA has to be changed to suit your needs.

*Please quote words posted by me saying that i like the kill count mechanic. You really need to stop posting rubbish and putting words into my mouth. I wrote quite a few LONG posts concerning the faults of kill count, posts which many fellow posters here felt summarised all the problems quite neatly. I dont know whether you are posting this nonsense in attempt to discredit me... in which case you have failed... or you are just ignorant... do you actually have access to the vote system and you know how i voted? Ill tell you... i voted to take kill count out of both broken tower and courtyard. Do your research and read my posts before posting such nonsense again. Your position regarding the old style mechanics has totally lost credibility in my eyes since you show absolutely NO ability to engage with ANYONE in proper discussion.

*Your logic has so much flaw in it, it astounds me to think you actually believe in it. First you claim that Anet has spent very little time on HA... when in fact they had spent quite considerable time adding these new mechanics in... you dont work for them, so how do you know how much work was required to code these new mechanics into the existing game? How presumptious you are to demand something from them. Lets forget the legitimacy of that claim and then proceed to the proposed course of action you believe is right. So... because Anet dont care about HA and dont want to spend time on it... we should revert back to old mechanics...

im more than willing to tear apart more of your posts if you wish

its is not I who is out of my depth

get your facts straight

Killed u man · Jul 02, 2007, 05:41 PM // 17:41

^ Pretty much general truth everyone realises.

ONE thing that made me lol in real life tough: "Balanced CAN still win halls"

Nice one: U call Savannah Heat balanced? Or how about Para's? Or how about Water snares? Or how About Hexes? This is not balanced... Balanced would be a good old ele/warder, a PD, SOME hexes (Not this overpowered Sh*t), A CG ranger, etc...

There is NO MORE BALANCED out here... Kill count, and all these halls objectives limit the builds too much to speak of any form of balanced. You GOTTA have massive aoe to kill, U gotta have an insane spike, U MUST have the brace yourself and speed boost, U MUST have the holding power, etc...

There is TOO much requirements... There is NO ROOM for a migrainer, for a CG... And yes, u sometimes do seem em in halls, but we all know they skipped, or faced bad teams, in broken tower/courtyard...

Thnik about it, Who wins in a 1v1v1 match: a team throwing spears, a team with some snares, a warrior hitting a bit, and CG interrupting OR a team with 2 acrane echo's savannah heats, hitting for 250+ dmg Each in Nearby aoe?

Point proven? No balanced, kill count is broken, remove it!

Death_From_Above · Jul 02, 2007, 05:50 PM // 17:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lorekeeper

*posting that something sucks and something owns hardcore is not a viable method of persuading people that your point of view has any merit. For some reason you continually claim to find no flaws in something regardless of the countless posts i and others have made pointing out otherwise. In that case do you want Anet to design the game around YOUR personal wants and needs?

Sigh how many times will i have to repeat myself. If i mention why kill counts not a good idea. Why alter mechanics are better on page 1 up to like 5 countless of times. Then i have done the same in many other threads. I dont find it nessersary to mention it again. I will rather simplify it mentioning overall this is the case. As for the flaws you claimed to have found. Did you not notice, i randomway, metalic and many others have disproved these claims therefore making them invalid.

As i said many times but just for you ill say it again so please dont get me to mention this again 2 or 3 pages down. I dont want anet to design the game around my personal wants and needs. I however found my personal wants and needs where the majority. Therefore this is why i say it. If i was in the miniority who thought kill count was a bad idea i would have just left the game end of. But no im in the majority and therefore that means if the majority are displeased there is a chance something would be done about it if anet are made aware of the problems.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lorekeeper

*you find very few flaws in the old style altar capping yet you have not yet shown any ability to tackle the concerns that many including myself have posted about it. All you seem able to do is say that it owned, so far you have done nothing to argue your case. Whereas plenty of arguments have been put forward to say that the although the existing mechanics arent perfect the older ones were broken too. Its worse than the 8vs8 vs 6vs6 debates... at least both sides of that argument actually bothered to support their claims.

Read back lol iv have tackled some of your claims and others. People said holding builds could hold basically 24 7. I nurse, random metalic and many others tackled this false statement. You forgetting stuff now, if in doubt please dont say stuff. I understand, yes its hard to remember everything posted in 9 pages and its long to go back to make sure what your saying is accurate.

But unless your 100 percent sure on what your saying please dont put it across as fact. If you read back, i said altar capping may have had some falts but i find very few. Hence i said few, this means there may be some but not many. As for what else you have said, iv mentioned above.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lorekeeper

*in my last post i think i showed how the new king of the hill system has in many ways adequately replaced the older system. With a few tweaks needed. Address those points and you MAY have a case for the old style being better. If you can argue that the new king of the hill mechanic is worse... do so.

Randomway did this, if you want ill quote it for you.

New Kill of the Hill works with a 2v1 scenario but has a few flaws first of all if the holding team controls the altar for the first 4 minutes they clinch victory. This is not necessarily better than the old system when you had a chance up until the final seconds. Even worse is the fact that there is a longer wait time between matches (opening the chest definitely does not take that long, maybe its to prevent skips?). In order to improve this mode you would have to have the end give more points. I think that the best point spread would be half during the first 6 minutes, and half druing the final 2 minutes. What i have to say is basically the same as this and iv said it in previous posts on this thread. Randomways said it again recently. I dont want to be a parrot and repeat these things when its been mentioned already and iv mentioned it already.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lorekeeper

*HA is ''playable'' if you can stand it, it is possible to win with balanced builds... its just very hard and takes alot of patience; there are several teams and guilds doing so. So HA is not as messed up as you seem to be crying about. Just because you dont have the patience and perserverence to succeed running a difficult build doesnt mean HA has to be changed to suit your needs.

YAWN. You obviously are forgeting what has been said in the past. Other wise you would know i said yes you can still run balanced and do well but kill counts still a bad mechanic and isnt very fun. Also it still means heavy hex builds and heavy heavy pressure dont really stand a chance. Please be sure about what you say when quoting me. It appears now you are putting words into my mouth which was what you claimed i was doing to you further down. How ironic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lorekeeper

*Please quote words posted by me saying that i like the kill count mechanic. You really need to stop posting rubbish and putting words into my mouth. I wrote quite a few LONG posts concerning the faults of kill count, posts which many fellow posters here felt summarised all the problems quite neatly. I dont know whether you are posting this nonsense in attempt to discredit me... in which case you have failed... or you are just ignorant... do you actually have access to the vote system and you know how i voted? Ill tell you... i voted to take kill count out of both broken tower and courtyard. Do your research and read my posts before posting such nonsense again. Your position regarding the old style mechanics has totally lost credibility in my eyes since you show absolutely NO ability to engage with ANYONE in proper discussion.

No i havent posted to discredit you or what ever you think. But take it as you feel, i have however posted to challange some of your points because i feel they are not what halls need. There not what will fix halls and its not what the people want. Also, yes you voted for take kill count out of both broken and courtyard. Why did you do that if your saying something else. Further more your one voter out of like 200. Are you implying that because of your invalid vote *i assume ur highlighting its invalid* the other 200 are also? Even if 5 more people did the same the figures if you can see would not change by much and to be honest, i doubt others did. Iv engaged in a proper discussion, just read back

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lorekeeper

*Your logic has so much flaw in it, it astounds me to think you actually believe in it. First you claim that Anet has spent very little time on HA... when in fact they had spent quite considerable time adding these new mechanics in... you dont work for them, so how do you know how much work was required to code these new mechanics into the existing game? How presumptious you are to demand something from them. Lets forget the legitimacy of that claim and then proceed to the proposed course of action you believe is right. So... because Anet dont care about HA and dont want to spend time on it... we should revert back to old mechanics...

Did i say anet had not spent much time on HA? Sorry you must have miss read or i never worded it properly. Heres the sentence again and ill explain it this time.

Anet have shown they do not want to spend much time on halls and do not intend to.

Im talking about the present not the past. Yes they have spent much time on halls *although it hasnt been what people wanted.* But they have made it clear they dont want to spend mucht ime on it AT THE MOMENT and do not intend to as Galie clearly stated and also said its much much much much further down their list. Moving on, im not being presumptious. This is where your rather ignorant. Izzy basically highlighted in a statement that if they wanted to revert HA back to alter capping would be like just a bit of hours work.

I wouldnt call this presumptious sorry. And lastly, i said many people say anet is to busy there working on gw en and gw2 ect ect. Therefore my response to that is well then just put it back to altar mechanics. I have heard this claim many times hence why i added it there for these people who feel it would be nessercary to bring it up again. In light for this also, if anet are busy as Galie says then we should just go back to alter capping as it was a mechanic that worked. Now lorekeeper, would you agree with me that before we can even decide on what must be done to HA we must first be aware of how much time anet has or they want to spend on it. This is a question i have asked which you have avoided many times.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lorekeeper

im more than willing to tear apart more of your posts if you wish

Go ahead you have my blessing. But please dont just stop at me but where ever you feel there is an invalid point in any post i suggest you go ahead. I would like to see your points and see how you would explain points which *im not going to repeat* made by other players.

Lorekeeper · Jul 02, 2007, 08:12 PM // 20:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Death_From_Above

As i said many times but just for you ill say it again so please dont get me to mention this again 2 or 3 pages down. I dont want anet to design the game around my personal wants and needs. I however found my personal wants and needs where the majority. Therefore this is why i say it. If i was in the miniority who thought kill count was a bad idea i would have just left the game end of. But no im in the majority and therefore that means if the majority are displeased there is a chance something would be done about it if anet are made aware of the problems.

They are aware of the problems but just because we are part of the majority who do not like kill count it doesnt mean we have to go back to the old mechanics. The point of contention between us is not over the kill count mechanic so please dont mix it into the cauldron.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Death_From_Above

Read back lol iv have tackled some of your claims and others. People said holding builds could hold basically 24 7. I nurse, random metalic and many others tackled this false statement. You forgetting stuff now, if in doubt please dont say stuff. I understand, yes its hard to remember everything posted in 9 pages and its long to go back to make sure what your saying is accurate.

But unless your 100 percent sure on what your saying please dont put it across as fact. If you read back, i said altar capping may have had some falts but i find very few. Hence i said few, this means there may be some but not many. As for what else you have said, iv mentioned above.

thats the thing... holding builds was only part of the problem of the old cap mechanic and old tombs. If thats the only claim you think that has been made about the problems of old tombs then YOU are the one who needs to go back and read through this thread and the other thread about altar capping. The problems involved not only holding builds but pointless waits until the last 2minutes making the rest of the match time wasted, and interrupt wars where the winner was not always based on skill but on luck since you could never 100% cover all sources of interrupts like you yourself admitted. Holding builds were a problem back then, hence the popularity of the bloodspike. So many people farmed fame running bloodspike... i knew someone who farmed so much fame from holding HoH with bloodspike that people PAID him to take them into Halls. He made quite alot of gold from that. It sickened me that they could hold so easily. There were so many bloodspikes and iways back then but Anet took an AGE to do anything about them... by the time the changes to iway were made many people had left.

In a nutshell what you need to prove is the following in order to make the old style capping appealing.

that

1) reverting to the old style altar mechanic wont bring us back to the days of the 2min rush for the altar.
2) that a new holding build could not be designed to hold out against 2 teams for a couple of minutes. (and ive already mentioned rit spike to be the fav candidate for this)
3) that interrupt wars would not occur.

[/QUOTE]

Randomway did this, if you want ill quote it for you.

In order to improve this mode (king of the hill) you would have to have the end give more points. I think that the best point spread would be half during the first 6 minutes, and half druing the final 2 minutes. [/I]

the difference between randomway and you is that at least he/she recognises that king of the hill could work if various tweaks were implemented. You however arent even able to entertain this notion or even discuss the current mechanics... tell us why you think they are so bad... you focus on supporting only 1 solution to this problem is exactly what makes your position so hard to believe in. If you displayed the willingness to evaluate all options on the table i would take you more seriously.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Death_From_Above

im just interested in having HA viable meaning you can actually play the dam game

Quote:

Originally Posted by Death_From_Above

YAWN. You obviously are forgeting what has been said in the past. Other wise you would know i said yes you can still run balanced and do well but kill counts still a bad mechanic and isnt very fun. Also it still means heavy hex builds and heavy heavy pressure dont really stand a chance. Please be sure about what you say when quoting me. It appears now you are putting words into my mouth which was what you claimed i was doing to you further down. How ironic.

your previous post you made a passionate cry to make HA playable again.
Then the most recent post you admit that running balanced is possible.

which one is it? If HA wasnt playable, then surely that would suggest that balanced no longer existed? But if its possible to run balanced and do well this would suggest that HA was still playable?

The point you are trying to make... just not doing very well at it... is that HA with kill count is not as fun as HA without kill count.

Its still very playable. It just gets quite frustrating when you try to run balanced.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Death_From_Above

Also, yes you voted for take kill count out of both broken and courtyard. Why did you do that if your saying something else. Further more your one voter out of like 200. Are you implying that because of your invalid vote *i assume ur highlighting its invalid* the other 200 are also?

why is my vote invalid? When did i ever say that i want to keep kill count in HA? Seriously this is getting beyond a joke.

read all my posts concerning kill count it doesnt take a Masters degree in English comprehension to realise i want it removed just as much as the other 70% of the voters.

Just to make things clear... our disagreement is over the return of the old style altar holding mechanic. NOT the removal of kill count.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Death_From_Above

In light for this also, if anet are busy as Galie says then we should just go back to alter capping as it was a mechanic that worked. Now lorekeeper, would you agree with me that before we can even decide on what must be done to HA we must first be aware of how much time anet has or they want to spend on it. This is a question i have asked which you have avoided many times.

my position is that even if they had 1000 years to work on HA, it wouldnt change the fact that returning to the old style altar capping mechanics would be the wrong solution. This is the issue between us.

You strongly believe that there were few significant problems with the old mechanics.
I believe that there were just as big problems with the old mechanics as there are with the new ones. Enough of my orginal pvp friends left the game over these issues for me to forget that very sad fact.

If indeed Anet have little time to devote to coding for HA what makes you think they can just take out all these new mechanics theyve added in the past 6 months? It would be safer to assume that taking them out and replacing them with the old (assuming they even kept the old code for the old tombs) would be far too time consuming for them given their commitments at the present.

This is why i have been trying to steer this discussion towards ideas on how to tweak the existing mechanics to improve them... because in all honestly another complete overhaul is quite unrealistic to expect.

Tweaking the current mechanics i would assume... would be a far less demanding task.

surely you can understand that.

ps

it might be better for us to discuss the merits and faults of the existing king of the hill mechanic vs the old in the other thread.

Takida · Jul 02, 2007, 08:38 PM // 20:38

Shmanka, seeking arrows isnt 150 skills, actually its one.

And my post a joke?? what about urs, 4 way killcount?? :/

TheZens · Jul 03, 2007, 11:37 AM // 11:37

Wow seriously why whine about this over and over again? this thread has slowly become so cluttered with repeating your positions and counter arguing in circles that no dev will bother reading it beyond page 8 or so. Saying X rocks hard doesnt cut it.

Really the way i see it is that there are 4 or 5 options

1. Put HA back the way it was (i dont think this is a good option personally)

2. Fix the current mechanics
- King of the hill with a scaling point system is ok.
- Relics runs that reward the fastest team would be fine.
- Capture points dont cut it too much luck/ganking make the game non skill based. It needs big changes or removing.
- Kill count just doesnt work because of the things mesmers, degen and pressure builds do and how the skills work. Im hoping it gets removed it limits builds more than altar holding ever did.

see this thread for details http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s...php?t=10145254

3. Start again with a blank sheet (frankly it isnt an option because of dev time constraints)

4. Make every match 1v1 even HoH make it like a giant pug tournament where whoever is winning in the HoH are really the best 8v8 annihlation team in the game at the moment. Throw out time limits except the VoD condition. There is no way a holding build can work with this condition because most holding builds lose in 1v1 matches vs good balanced teams it just sometimes takes a bit of time if they are decent. The best matches are the 1v1 matches anyway imo.

5. Do nothing. (In which case im off to POTBS)

Death_From_Above · Jul 03, 2007, 01:41 PM // 13:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheZens

Wow seriously why whine about this over and over again? this thread has slowly become so cluttered with repeating your positions and counter arguing in circles that no dev will bother reading it beyond page 8 or so. Saying X rocks hard doesnt cut it.

Really the way i see it is that there are 4 or 5 options

1. Put HA back the way it was (i dont think this is a good option personally)

2. Fix the current mechanics
- King of the hill with a scaling point system is ok.
- Relics runs that reward the fastest team would be fine.
- Capture points dont cut it too much luck/ganking make the game non skill based. It needs big changes or removing.
- Kill count just doesnt work because of the things mesmers, degen and pressure builds do and how the skills work. Im hoping it gets removed it limits builds more than altar holding ever did.

see this thread for details http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s...php?t=10145254

3. Start again with a blank sheet (frankly it isnt an option because of dev time constraints)

4. Make every match 1v1 even HoH make it like a giant pug tournament where whoever is winning in the HoH are really the best 8v8 annihlation team in the game at the moment. Throw out time limits except the VoD condition. There is no way a holding build can work with this condition because most holding builds lose in 1v1 matches vs good balanced teams it just sometimes takes a bit of time if they are decent. The best matches are the 1v1 matches anyway imo.

5. Do nothing. (In which case im off to POTBS)

Very neatly and nicely summed up though I would disagree with point 1. But which of these points you have listed would you think would be the right path to go down.

On a side note i had a look at your post (the one you have placed a link to). Some very good points you have raised there.

Gimme Money Plzkthx · Jul 03, 2007, 05:44 PM // 17:44

If you people seriously keep writing 500+ word essays, no one is going to read them, so just stop already. The way I see it, the only reason that people are asking for old school altars back is because we know anet is not willing to spend time on HA. Recognizing this, I would much rather have altars back and everything else removed, even though I am well aware it was flawed (although I dispute that it was as deeply flawed as lorekeeper tries to say it is, but w/e). I would have no problem with the current king of the hill mechanic, even without a bit of tweaking (it's halfway decent :/), and I might even be able to deal with a relic run that rewards the faster team (although I still think we will see too much ganking to make this viable). The problem is, I do not see anet being willing enough to stick around for like a month of testing, suggestions, and complaining to do this, and thus I would rather just see the old HA implemented immediately. (P.S. cap points and killcount blow)

Loot Junkie · Jul 03, 2007, 08:18 PM // 20:18

I just scanned through this thread from start to finish, and i have this to say if anet is listening;

I first took interest in HA during the double-fame weekend at the end of august last year. I was in a pve guild that was very enjoyable and we had all wet our feet on the beginner level pvp of Fort Aspenwood and AB, since we were all finding the pve side of the game kind of boring. HA was the old 8-man altar capping that so many people in this thread would like to see back. I remember that even though we didnt know what we were doing, we had fun and most of us had r3 before too long. I became engrossed in HA, studying all skill descriptions and sidenotes on guild wiki, I even studied up on all the upcoming nightfall skills intensely. Then HA became 6 man, the beginning of the end for me and many other people that i played with. By this time we were able to figure out how to run a build but 6 man killed variety in team building. My mates and i were all overjoyed to hear that 8 man was coming back, but the new objectives totally sucked in our opinion so we all stopped playing HA and concentrated on getting rich from DoA runs instead.

I apologize for this somewhat longwinded essay, but i think it speaks for many people who were interested in starting to HA back when it was actually fun. I've been at r5 for 9 months now, so what if there are 999 other people out there like me who would be at the mid to upper levels of HA competence had HA been properly nurtured by anet? how many more districts would that fill? My favorite team build uses heavy hex degen but there is no room for this in the current metagame. Just blasting away with fire aoe is not creative and strategic enough to hold my interest, neither is rit-spike. Unfortunately anet is a business, and businesses seek to maximize their profit margin. It seems that quality has been left behind in the quest for dollars

Motoko Kusanagi War · Jul 06, 2007, 02:28 AM // 02:28

Essentially, some map objectives in Heroes Ascent do need modification.

But currently the main problem seems to be the alotment of heroes into Heroes Ascent. Instead of complaining as a personal opinion or I feel this blah blah blah, this argument should be brought up as a comparision to what Anet has offered. Heroes Ascent is a Player vs Player Environment. If people wanted to face AI... PvE has always been an option. So the removal of heroes from PvP is necessity otherwise, PvP HA is just an organized play of computers.

As far as the maps are presented:
Each map is presented to elminate a team un-fit for a match in the hall of heroes.

UNDERWORLD - Basic fight match.

BURIAL MOUNDS - Basic match with added objective to kill priest. This allows some teams to fight longer than normal if the opponent does not kill priest. Some teams cannot handle that constant pressure. So this map presents fairness too.

BROKEN TOWER - Sometimes a fair who has the best tactics caller/team and who can make the most smart kills and live. Sometimes an all out unfair gank fest on the team the wins halls a decent amount. The issue with this is 3 teams all have the same objective. Get kills. Ganking on team presents both the gankers with a fair advantage to gaining kills, and an unfair situation for the people getting ganked. Old HA holding in broken is not reasonable based on teams would not do anything till the last 30 seconds then cap. King of the Hill has been a highly suggested game mechanic for the map since its introduction into the Hall of Heroes. It provides 3 teams and equal objective to cap the center and for a solid match of constant switching of the altar. Complain about getting ganked? You are suppose to be ganked if you are holding the altar. This opportunity of a match does allow ganking, but that is if a team is going all out on another in sacrifice of the altar. This occurance would appear much less than the current Broken Tower situation. Of ganking and providing a benefit of doing so. Here, the team that is being ganked wouldn't win, but the team ganking and not holding center is sacrificing their win too. This would also eminate teams that cannot hold the center, and it would also weaken teams that are built for kill count. Thus preparation for a match in the Hall of Heroes.

UNHOLY TEMPLES - A running match a fair match, and a map that does not allow two ways to run the relic. This match allows people who have a good team to counter snares, and heal the snares placed one them. This match also will eliminate teams not built for running, which is eventually required by teams in the Hall of Heroes.

DARK CHAMBERS - This map is a remake of Burial, yet a bit bigger. There are not as many obstacles, and it has a large amount of fighting area. This map weakens AoE teams since (assuming you are wise not to ball up) you have much more area to spread in this fight as opposed to Underworld or Burial Mounds. It still eliminates some teams who would have an advantage on small maps. And it gives teams who need some space and play better on a larger playground a better advantage.

COURTYARD - A simple equation, more passages+brokentower=courtyard. Currently it is kill count. BUT, assuming with the Broken Tower mod I mentioned. If every group that made it to courtyard, through all of the previous maps, WITHOUT SKIPS, kill count would be acceptable to some point. But since not as many people play this game anymore. A team that has gone through all of the maps and gets to courtyard, and faces 2 teams that would have failed horribly at Broken Tower (with King of the Hill mod) is an unfair match. So what else is the option than to make it another King of the Hill. Same concept behind broken tower.
I will bring this up, I know an argument would arise, "Well wait, we've already done burial mounds, dark chambers is the same... why do we need to do that? Just as we just owned Broken Tower, why do we need to repeat it?!" But the honest response to it is in today's current game mechanics. There are more skips in this game than ever, so a repeat of the first maps is purely fair, since sometimes Courtyard would be their first (assuming my mod) King of the Hill. And for teams that had no skips whatsoever, in that case, it is King of the Hill, and may the best team win. The team deserving to get to halls, obviously outplayed the other teams.

SACRED TEMPLES - A more creative version of Unholy Temples. Yet this is the same relic run, how will your team split? Can your monks be placed in the right position? How well is your runner at running the right path, dodging, while another team mates opens the gate while he is furiously battling assuming another opponent trying to keep the gate closed on your team?
This map is perfect for tactics and how well your team can communicate vs another. Splitting is all in preparation for Cap Points in halls. And communication and snaring and body blocking all for relic runs in halls. Honestly, besides basic Underworld fights, its the best map.

`~Hall of Heroes~`

1. King of the Hill - set for the the holding team, because they are holding, a good game, and much better than the old holding where a team would hold 3 mins 30 secs and then lose because one team decides to come in , spike down the ghost and hold for 15 seconds and win. Should be kept.

2. Capture Points - To alot of teams and players, this match sucks. Your team is bad at splitting? Bummer. A team ganks straight for your base? Why would you be stupid enough to sit there and fight while the other team is capping other points. Give up your base, and go take another with your team. It is a different situation as far as them killing you for the sake of ganking and you really can't do much about that. But in a majority of the ganks, it is heroway not knowing what they are doing are just ganking you because you snuck off to their base and took their point. But this would be solved if at the beginning, the no heroes update was implemented. In a fair match, all teams are at the mouth of their base, fighting for the center, snaring anything trying to go back on their base. Unfortunatly this buffs any aoe teams, to just nuke the center and capture it. But if they hadn't gotten skips, and had gotten lucky on kill counts, like would be fixed, they almost certainly wouldn't be there. So perhaps widening the size of the center fighting area may permit some balance to the map. Ritspike probably has the biggest advantage when it come to this, they can split-fight on splits, heal on splits. But all in all, it is the tactics caller who needs to make calls pending his altar getting ganked. And permitted heroes were gone. Yes there would still be ganks. BUT, you are most likely getting ganked because:
A) You pissed off a team
B) You misread an opposing team and how they play and you got too many points at the beginning so they will just attack you.
C) The two opposing teams are friends and don't want you to win, which assuming all these mods are handled, ganking would occur much less.

3. Relic Runs - This match is fair, it requires communication as far as the caller, tactics (run fast the whole match, or slow on relic and speed run at the end). Again, if you are getting ganked at mid point, it is probably because you are ahead, just take the beating, you will get behind but the other teams will move on each other, and then you can power run the rest and snare the other teams. It is all how you play it.

If you are too lazy to read this:
Get rid of Heroes in Heroes Ascent. This is PvP Player vs Player. And don't try to convince me you are micromanaging your heroes so that technically I am fighting two of you.
Underworld-No change.
Burial Mounds-No change.
Broken Tower-Change to King of the Hill style.
Unholy Temples-No change.
Dark Chambers-No change.
Courtyard-Change to King of the Hill style.
Sacred Temples-No change.
Hall of Heroes -
A)King of the Hill-No change
B)Capture Points-Increase the sizes of the altars to weaken AoE teams.
C)Relic Runs-No change

**My opinion on halls is based purely that the changes to broken and courtyard are made. Otherwise I would have a much lengthier paper to write ^_^**

See you in Halls!

Xioden · Jul 06, 2007, 07:19 AM // 07:19

One thing I definitely have to agree with that was stated earlier: The FIRST to do something needs to take the victory, not the last one. Other little changes include DP in general (at least for cap points). And possibly some points for holding the center shrine for kill counts.

Something definitely needs to be done about the "Politics" involved with it. Unless you're sure you can completely roll both teams you really have to hold back lest you draw the dreaded wrath of the losing team. Something that could go well towards this would be have the scores hidden until the last 30-60 seconds, and/or have extra bonus objectives during that time. The bonuses can either be done in the form of just increasing point values, or adding some kind of bonus objectives.

DreamWind · Jul 06, 2007, 07:36 AM // 07:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gimme Money Plzkthx

The way I see it, the only reason that people are asking for old school altars back is because we know anet is not willing to spend time on HA. Recognizing this, I would much rather have altars back and everything else removed, even though I am well aware it was flawed.

Eh you won the thread TBH. Anet has proven that they could care less about HA. It isn't anywhere near their things to do list.

This thread is full of some great ideas for change, but none of them will ever happen. The current HA sucks...almost nobody good disagrees with that. My personal opinion is that kill count and all the new crap in HA is about the worst thing in Guild Wars. I basically haven't played HA since, when I used to be a regular.

It would be real easy for Anet to put HA back to how it used to be. Yes it has flaws that I have even brought up in the past, but who cares at this point? It would be better than what we have now, and wouldn't take too much of Anet's "precious time" with all the other stuff they are doing.

Lorekeeper · Jul 06, 2007, 11:02 AM // 11:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Eh you won the thread TBH. Anet has proven that they could care less about HA. It isn't anywhere near their things to do list.

This thread is full of some great ideas for change, but none of them will ever happen. The current HA sucks...almost nobody good disagrees with that.

It would be real easy for Anet to put HA back to how it used to be. Yes it has flaws that I have even brought up in the past, but who cares at this point? It would be better than what we have now, and wouldn't take too much of Anet's "precious time" with all the other stuff they are doing.

im sorry but i find the logic and basis for this argument and its conclusion totally contradictory.

a) you state that anet has no time to spend on HA
b) you state that new ideas for changes wont happen because of a)
c) then you proceed to say that it would be ''easy'' for Anet to put back HA to how it used to be. Totally ignoring the basis of your dismissal for b)

just to clarify the faults in this argument. If Anet dont have time to implement changes to EXISTING mechanics... like a new point system for kill count and a bonus for faster running on relic runs.

how will they have time to remove ALL the new mechanics... and replace them with the old???

youre asking them to:
remove kill count from broken tower
remove kill count from courtyard
remove king of the hill from HoH
remove capture point from HoH
remove relic runs from HoH

and then:
put back altar holding on broken tower
put back altar holding on courtyard
put back altar holding in HoH

You assume to know how much coding/work this involves, you say it would be ''easy'' to put HoH back the way it was. But how can you assume this? If indeed it was ''easy'' to do, then i guess the question remaining is... why dont they do it and get it over and done with?

answer to that question might be that they reject the idea of going back to the old mechanics. Or that it isnt as easy as you think.

not to mention the irrationality of the position that if

a) current mechanics suck due to major flaws and
b) old mechanics were flawed in some ways also
c) bring back old mechanics cos noone really cares about the flaws of the old mechanics.

let me just say again that many of the new mechanics in HA today were created because HA players were just as sick of the stale old mechanics as current HA players are sick of the current mechanics. If the old mechanics were put back into place, in a couple of weeks or months this forum would be filled yet again with posts complaining about holding builds and interrupt wars and last minute rushes for the altar.

The only way we can be sure of the solutions that Anet are considering is if someone from Anet actually comes out and posts here, and says ''hi, this is the shortlist of possible changes we are able to consider for HA given our limited time resources... they are x, y, z. What do you think of them?''

that is probably the most i can expect, it might even be too much to expect but since Andrew Patrick has presented this to the devs i must assume they are at least aware of the issues.

whether awareness leads to action is another thing.

DreamWind · Jul 06, 2007, 02:37 PM // 14:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lorekeeper

how will they have time to remove ALL the new mechanics... and replace them with the old???

You assume to know how much coding/work this involves, you say it would be ''easy'' to put HoH back the way it was. But how can you assume this?

Fair enough. I was assuming that Anet "saved" the old HA coding so they could simply reapply it. They have done that in the past with maps in HA.

I would assume however that simply reapplying the old HA would take less dev time than making brand new additions though. With all the stuff Anet has going on right now, I think the "less dev time" HA change would be the only plausible one at this point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lorekeeper

let me just say again that many of the new mechanics in HA today were created because HA players were just as sick of the stale old mechanics as current HA players are sick of the current mechanics. If the old mechanics were put back into place, in a couple of weeks or months this forum would be filled yet again with posts complaining about holding builds and interrupt wars and last minute rushes for the altar.

Judging by this thread, most people aren't happy with the new mechanics either. The old mechanics had issues, many people agree on that. But you can't tell me that HA hasn't had a massive decline because of so many new additions to it. The new additions were good in theory, but now we know from experience that HA is a dying game because of them. I seriously think that the best damage control at this point would be to simply put it back to its original state and hope for the best.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lorekeeper

The only way we can be sure of the solutions that Anet are considering is if someone from Anet actually comes out and posts here, and says ''hi, this is the shortlist of possible changes we are able to consider for HA given our limited time resources... they are x, y, z. What do you think of them?''

that is probably the most i can expect, it might even be too much to expect but since Andrew Patrick has presented this to the devs i must assume they are at least aware of the issues.

whether awareness leads to action is another thing.

Sadly, that is WAY too much to expect. I guess I am just a negative person when it comes to Anets "awareness and action" team. I am especially negative when it comes to their "communication" team. And on top of that negativity, I am TRIPLELY QUAD negative when it comes to their work on HA. HA is arguably the biggest failure in Guild Wars at the moment (ARGUABLY).

So I think the previous point, while it may have been based on an assumption, was a good point nonetheless. Putting HA back to old state wouldn't be so horrible IMO.

Gimme Money Plzkthx · Jul 06, 2007, 06:52 PM // 18:52

See, the problem with your arguments lorekeeper is that they do not deal with the hypothetical, as ours about killcount (kind of) do. Altar holding actually HAPPENED in the past, everyone knows what happened with altar holding and how it worked. And guess what? People liked it. It doesn't matter if there were a few minor flaws, people liked it and it was relatively balanced. The situations you describe where there are 2+ interrupted on every team and you have like 16+ skills per team needed to win simply did not happen. The fact of the matter is, skill decided 90% plus of the old altar holding HoH wins. Also, the "people left due to interrupt wars" is complete rubbish, especially when compared to the amount of ragequits due to 6v6 and killcount. Basically, you can argue all you want, but some of the arguments make little sense/did not happen, and even if they did, it doesn't matter because people liked altar holding, and it's the only logical solution atm due to anet's unwillingness to do ANYTHING.

Lorekeeper · Jul 06, 2007, 10:50 PM // 22:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gimme Money Plzkthx

Altar holding actually HAPPENED in the past, everyone knows what happened with altar holding and how it worked. And guess what? People liked it. It doesn't matter if there were a few minor flaws, people liked it and it was relatively balanced.

the day you can prove that it worked and that people liked it is the day your posts full of generalisations and blanket statements carry ANY force. But lacking any substantial evidence to backup your claims even the logical basis for it is lacking.

If it worked. If everyone liked it. If it was balanced. We would still have the old altar capping mechanic today.. HOWEVER

Why did Anet implement a New King of the hill system?

Why did they reduce the cap time from 5 to 2 seconds?

Why did they make the ghostly hero much harder to block?

Why did they make the cappable area on the altar much larger?

WHy did they introduce a points system?

They did this because... and i know this might be a shock for you so prepare yourself. People were sick of the old mechanics... sick of holding builds... sick of interrupt wars... sick of cg rangers in all balanced teams... infusers were sick of infusing the same old bloodspike 24/7... people were sick of holding builds skipping to HoH and holding for hours.

the various changes leading to the creation of the new king of the hill mechanic were done because of the flaws in the old style altar holding mechanics.

Its right there in front of your face but you just dont see it.

The new king of the hill is so much superior to the old altar mechanic. And it was designed to be because the old mechanic was broken.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gimme Money Plzkthx

The fact of the matter is, skill decided 90% plus of the old altar holding HoH wins.

if you think that it took skill to run a mix of 8 healers and prots to keep alive 1NPC for about 2 minutes... you are beyond reason. All it took was a team of half decent players who had enough experience holding an altar as a bloodspike team to hold. I know this for a fact because an ex-guild mate of mine from my first ever pve guild (yes i started this game pveing) ran a bloodspike team which held HoH continuously. So reliably did this team hold that they had a fame farming service which made them quite alot of gold. But as a player... he was rubbish. His attempts to play in or run a balanced build were just that ''attempts'' and the rest of the players in his bloodspike team i assume were just as bad because all they played was bloodspike. Sure they were good bloodspikers... they ran it enough to be good at it. But were they skilled? Sorry.

dont make me laugh.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gimme Money Plzkthx

Also, the "people left due to interrupt wars" is complete rubbish, especially when compared to the amount of ragequits due to 6v6 and killcount.

6vs6 and kill count are relatively new developments in the entire history of HA.

The good players who remained during 6vs6 were already reduced in number from the staleness of 8vs8. 6vs6 only nailed the coffin tighter, the coffin had already been prepared.

6vs6 more or less coincided with the release of nightfall, NF introduced a whole bunch of imbalanced stuff that was not dealt with in timely fashion. Its never been the mechanics that made things so unbearable to play, its always been the gimmicks and imbalanced builds that were designed to exploit them. Even to this day, the rit spike/spike build meta exploits the kill count mechanic and makes it hard for other builds to compete. Granted the old altar mechanics did need changing and were changed but the problem with the 6vs6 was mainly due to imbalanced skills more than the size of parties. This is why the change back to 8vs8 has not solved anything because although a few of the imbalances introduced post-NF have been nerfed... several still exist, rit spike being the main one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gimme Money Plzkthx

Basically, you can argue all you want, but some of the arguments make little sense/did not happen, and even if they did, it doesn't matter because people liked altar holding, and it's the only logical solution atm due to anet's unwillingness to do ANYTHING.

LOL

do you read your posts when you write them?

your words: ANET are unwilling to do ANYTHING so the ONLY LOGICAL solution would be for them to DO SOMETHING and put HA back to old style altar capping.

if anet are unwilling to do anything why is it logical for them to then do something and put HA back to the old style?

im trying to bend my mind to your logic but its resisting, and im just confusing myself because i cant bend the laws of the universe like you seem to be.

haha this is quite entertaining

gives me a nice break from my dissertation.

keep it coming!

Gimme Money Plzkthx · Jul 06, 2007, 10:57 PM // 22:57

I never meant to imply that builds such as bloodspike required skill, but only shitty players complained about being unable to kick b spike off an altar. Thus, skilled players were able to do it, and unskilled players weren't, so skill still decided the match (a bit of twisted logic, but you see what I mean?). Also, the current koth would be fine as an altar holding map. It is still holding an altar, so I would have no real problem with it (except the deal with not being able to come back at the end). The point is, killcount, murderball, and cap points all need to be removed. As for the last part of your post, don't be stupid. It would be extremely simple for anet to revert to altar holding; as simple as just loading up a new map, assuming they have it saved. If you honestly read that literally into a post for anything to mean anything, then you're just really RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GOing stupid, because then this thread and these posts would never exist if everyone took not doing anything literally...

God Apprentice · Jul 07, 2007, 12:24 AM // 00:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lorekeeper

keep alive 1NPC for about 2 minutes...

qft

Even though I had many fun matches back in altar holding, and I do miss having to beat a team to drop the bridge for altar, I always hated the "ok guys, wait til 2 then rush for cap"