Curse

TheOneMephisto · May 13, 2007, 05:46 PM // 17:46

So reading some reader's opinions and thinking about the energy that ANet is putting into HvH makes me think that they can do a lot better for TA. IMO, TA would be the ideal format for a more "casual" style of PvP that can act as the stepping stone to GvG.

So one of the things that has made TA die is the lack of variety. I suggest keeping most of the current maps (maybe killing a deathmatch or 2), but add in some more types. Currently we have killcount, deathmatch, and priest deathmatch, which are all pretty similar. Add in something like a modified shrine map, where shrines gives bonuses to combat and points at a slow rate, or a king-of-the-hill map that you get points based on how many more people from your team are in a set area each second (put some +damage -health buffs in the area?). Whatever, but some more variety in the map selection might be nice.

However, the main thing that TA needs is tangible rewards, aka a ladder. My suggestion is to introduce mini-guild-like-things, we can call them rosters for now. Being in a "roster" would have no bearing on what guild you're in, so if you want to TA with your guild, okay, if you want to TA with a separate group of people, fine also.

So of course the ladder and daily tournaments are set up for TA. You would have the regular rated matches, regular unrateds, challenge unrateds (skirmish?), and daily tournaments. To enter rated matches or daily tournaments, at least 3/4 of the people on your team must have been on your roster for 14 days. These would work just like GvG or HvH, using the ELO system to rank rosters, having qualifier points for the monthly championships, etc.

For the unrateds, they would work like HvH unrateds but any team of 4 would be able to enter into them. And the challenge unrateds would act as unrateds GvGs, allowing you to challenge another team of 4 (challenge by typing the opposing team leader?).

This I believe would be what ANet wants in terms of a form of more casual PvP and a stepping stone to GvG. 4 players is a lot easier to get together than 8, so it would be easier to get into. It would (if implemented right) be a great indicator of skill with the right maps and balance, allowing people to improve. Also, guilds could easily set up smurf rosters to play with potential recruits in a competitive gametype that wouldn't risk rating, especially since in the daily tournaments you're almost guaranteed at least 1-2 games against really good teams, the only kinds of games that let a good player really shine. I've also always believed that 4v4 is a better indicator of individual skill, as your contribution to the overall team is bigger.

So basically ANet, please kill HvH and start pumping energy into TA?

EDIT: Some typos, rewrote the map part.

Dzan · May 13, 2007, 09:09 PM // 21:09

I like this, just make it so that "rosters" can't be changed too easily so that there is some consistency to the ladder and its all good. Heck, maybe instead of 4 man rosters you have 6 man rosters so there is room for alternates.

FoxBat · May 13, 2007, 09:42 PM // 21:42

Why should casual PvP have ladders?

Yes, that's all HvH is, but the joke is Anet wishes it was something more. They have a looong way to go though.

Whether high or low quality, hero battles is not a gateway to GvG nor is it really taking players away from it. It appeals to the lonely RA/AB guy that doesn't want to rely on others. As messed up as it is, it's still the most competitive solo format at the moment.

That said, sealed deck TA tournies just for reward points or something would be fun.

TheOneMephisto · May 13, 2007, 09:55 PM // 21:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoxBat

Why should casual PvP have ladders?

Well, what I'm trying to do is to make a stepping stone to GvG. Currently, GvG is pretty hard to get into, getting a team and getting to the point where you can get enough games in to get better is extremely hard. And trying to get better in TA doesn't really do anything, as most of the teams you fight are crap because TA is almost deserted.

However, if you could raise the level of competition in TA to the point where lots of good players are playing and getting better there, it could turn into a breeding ground for new GvGers. GW really needs that stepping stone, the arena that isn't too difficult to get into but still promotes the skills and allows you to build the connections to get into GvG. I've always believed that TA is the best place for that, however, the level of competition simply destroys it.

By implementing a ladder system, you would be creating an easy to access yet competitive and hopefully skill-based format. More players would play it because you have something to track your accomplishments by, and the possibility of fame and even money if you become good enoguh. Good players that rise to the top in TA can get the attention of GvG guilds through the ladder, especially if those GvG guilds know that TA now requires skill. People playing TA would also form a lot of connections with other TAers, allowing TAers to merge and enter GvG.

And also, it would just be fun. Having a format that is competitive but doesn't require organizing 8 people's schedules really does appeal to me. It isn't hard to get 4 people on, and I really believe that if they implemented the right maps that a TA ladder system could be a source of a lot of new high-level PvPers.

skillsbas8 · May 13, 2007, 10:52 PM // 22:52

agree completely

Genova · May 14, 2007, 08:39 AM // 08:39

I agree too. That's a shame for GW to not have a smooth enough learning curve towards GvG, by this time. However I hope that the pairings will not be like GvG where noobs fight the hardcore elite farming faction points. That's not fun at all.

LuckyGiant · May 15, 2007, 11:57 PM // 23:57

Tournaments *thumbs up*

But keep that shrine BS out of TA. The meta doesn't need to turn that way.

urania · May 16, 2007, 06:02 PM // 18:02

I completely agree with all of the points, apart from the map changes....the simplicity of TA (ie. kill the enemy team) should stay the way it is.

shame anet treats TA like a foster child tho and will very likely just overlook a thread like this

.

moko · May 16, 2007, 06:27 PM // 18:27

interesting suggestions, you hit the current TA problem on the nail.

i've been thinking of sub-teams for the ladder myself some days ago, and completely agree. a ladder would make it a lot more fun and raise the level -- some good players that play it for fun might actually be serious then.

i'm not sure if this would change cookie cutters though, which is still a problem in TA, but that doens't matter a lot i suppose.

shrines *might* be a good idea if the maps were designed very well, and if only 1 (or a maximum of 2 maps) existed, to prevent a camp-run-assassin meta like this is the case in HB.

new maps however (that stick with the kill the other team) would be an interesting addition too. just no more deathcounts or priests. :P

basically..TA needs something fresh, something that will raise competition, and something that is fun.

/signed

now all we need is more support and someone from anet to look into this. :P

Dzan · May 16, 2007, 09:33 PM // 21:33

The big picture is HvH sells copies of Nightfall to causal (or fence sitting pvers) pvpers who havent bought it yet. Revamping TA isnt going to sell any more copies of the game. Sadly, that is what matters.

Orange Milk · May 17, 2007, 03:05 PM // 15:05

Last night I was in HA for about an hour then my Alliance took a break so I rolled over to TA, there was maybe a dozen people in it.

I used to TA a ton, I'm not a Glad (20 points) but liked the fact it took a short amount of time to get a group and roll on in. You can get in a dozen or matches in the time it takes to just put a HA team together. I love it there, just sad that its empty. I'd participate in a ladder, after all every ladder needs a last place team

Not big on shrine maps, the other "styles" are fine, but new maps with those style would be really nice.

I played on HvH battl when it first started, thumped the crap out of the guy I fought and never went back, thought it was one of the dumbest things I'd ever participated in. I really don't understand the hype to it and why ANET is pumping so much into it.

thedudemanwo · May 17, 2007, 05:19 PM // 17:19

sweet ideas, the separate roster would be good also because it would just open up more ways for people to network

Patccmoi · May 17, 2007, 06:08 PM // 18:08

tbh i'd be more happy to see HvH playable in 4v4 than TA. Imo Hero Battles with only human players would be a much better stepping stone for GvG than TA. Because it's multi-objective (can win through flag capping or killing the other team) it's harder to have set gimmicks that you can't beat through tactics and thus reduces the RPS part that sometimes just destroys you in TA. Some teams are simply impossible to beat through tactics even with a somewhat 'balanced' setup because you just can't cover for EVERYTHING. And there's also the problem that teams like 4 monks can easily ruin it if there's ladders and everything as they might not be able to kill but you couldn't kill them either. So as long as they're patient, they can pretty much not lose any game but ruin it for others who either suck it up and wait for hours against them or accept a loss everytime they face them.

Sadly, TA isn't designed with enough depth to cover for all those problems imo, and it SHOULDN'T be designed otherwise either i think. It's nice and fun but it's really casual and it's too shallow to be anything else.

Hero Battles with all players would teach team coordination, splits, tactics change and skirmish play which are all vital to GvG. Straight 4v4 fight is non-existant in GvG with TA-like teams. Sure you can have some 4v4 splits once in a while, but if you can't beat the other team for one reason or another you can retreat or switch who you use on each split, etc. but in TA there is no such option.

TA isn't skillless, far from it, but i don't think it has enough to it to justify something like a ladder because it's too abusable and too easy to kinda abuse the system. And i don't think new map types would settle it as long as 4v4 deathmatch with no other objective exists.

TheOneMephisto · May 17, 2007, 11:47 PM // 23:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patccmoi

tbh i'd be more happy to see HvH playable in 4v4 than TA. Imo Hero Battles with only human players would be a much better stepping stone for GvG than TA. Because it's multi-objective (can win through flag capping or killing the other team) it's harder to have set gimmicks that you can't beat through tactics and thus reduces the RPS part that sometimes just destroys you in TA. Some teams are simply impossible to beat through tactics even with a somewhat 'balanced' setup because you just can't cover for EVERYTHING. And there's also the problem that teams like 4 monks can easily ruin it if there's ladders and everything as they might not be able to kill but you couldn't kill them either. So as long as they're patient, they can pretty much not lose any game but ruin it for others who either suck it up and wait for hours against them or accept a loss everytime they face them.

Sadly, TA isn't designed with enough depth to cover for all those problems imo, and it SHOULDN'T be designed otherwise either i think. It's nice and fun but it's really casual and it's too shallow to be anything else.

Hero Battles with all players would teach team coordination, splits, tactics change and skirmish play which are all vital to GvG. Straight 4v4 fight is non-existant in GvG with TA-like teams. Sure you can have some 4v4 splits once in a while, but if you can't beat the other team for one reason or another you can retreat or switch who you use on each split, etc. but in TA there is no such option.

TA isn't skillless, far from it, but i don't think it has enough to it to justify something like a ladder because it's too abusable and too easy to kinda abuse the system. And i don't think new map types would settle it as long as 4v4 deathmatch with no other objective exists.

Why wouldn't new map types settle it? As long as they implement random map selection (why wouldn't they?), putting in maps with various objectives would make gimmicks almost impossible to run. Even if your build is set up for a straight 4v4 fight and would dominate anything in that 4v4, you might run into a shrine map and it wouldn't mean anything. Even if you set up the ultimate splitting build, if you end up on a deathcount you're going to be screwed. As long as they take out/add in enough maps to make it a fairly even distribution of various required playstyles and tactics, any gimmicky team would run into enough maps where their gimmick wouldn't work that running balanced would be better as long as the players are good.

I think that you're misunderstanding the new maps types that I would want. I wouldn't want just some more fancy deathmatch and priest maps, I would want a whole host of various maps. I'd probably prefer having something like 2-3 deathmatch, 1-2 killcount, 1-2 priest deathmatch, 2-3 shrine/equivalent, 1-3 other.

I actually first partially got the idea from people saying that they would like HvH with 4 players, and so I thought that implementing the HvH maps into a ladder-based TA system, but retaining some of the deathmatch maps, would make not only running important, but also the ability to fight straight up. Similar to the idea that many have had of balancing HvH by adding in a couple 4v4 deathmatches to force people to play both ways.

Patccmoi · May 18, 2007, 03:05 AM // 03:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheOneMephisto

Why wouldn't new map types settle it? As long as they implement random map selection (why wouldn't they?), putting in maps with various objectives would make gimmicks almost impossible to run. Even if your build is set up for a straight 4v4 fight and would dominate anything in that 4v4, you might run into a shrine map and it wouldn't mean anything. Even if you set up the ultimate splitting build, if you end up on a deathcount you're going to be screwed. As long as they take out/add in enough maps to make it a fairly even distribution of various required playstyles and tactics, any gimmicky team would run into enough maps where their gimmick wouldn't work that running balanced would be better as long as the players are good.

I think that you're misunderstanding the new maps types that I would want. I wouldn't want just some more fancy deathmatch and priest maps, I would want a whole host of various maps. I'd probably prefer having something like 2-3 deathmatch, 1-2 killcount, 1-2 priest deathmatch, 2-3 shrine/equivalent, 1-3 other.

I actually first partially got the idea from people saying that they would like HvH with 4 players, and so I thought that implementing the HvH maps into a ladder-based TA system, but retaining some of the deathmatch maps, would make not only running important, but also the ability to fight straight up. Similar to the idea that many have had of balancing HvH by adding in a couple 4v4 deathmatches to force people to play both ways.

See, if all you have is HvH maps + deathmatches (1v1 kill count and priest map is pretty much just deathmatch), that's not as bad. But i don't agree at all with adding tons of map types. Why? Because you have 4 players. The utility you can bring is already low enough. If you put too many 'required' utility, well you don't have anything left for build variety.

If what you want is to suggest 4v4 HvH and mix deathmatches in them, maybe it's ok. But even then, i think i'd prefer simply straight 4v4 HvH with no deathmatch. You shouldn't need to 'force' people into fighting with 4 players. With 4 players, it's easy to bring the utility required to stop pure running and actually use it decently (which heroes can't do) so that people have to fight without resorting to other map types. If it truly doesn't work, you could add possibly some Deathmatch mixed in them. But think about it, a build that'd be designed for pure running would likely be hell to kill in a deathmatch as they'd just kite you forever and you'd end up with that 'griefing' part again. Pure deathmatches with only 4 players leaves too much room to RPS for a ladder imo. It's fine for casual play cause taking a loss doesn't matter if you're going to have to fight that team 1 hour to kill them, but when it's on a ladder it's different.

urania · May 18, 2007, 06:23 AM // 06:23

gale says hi.
You just don't enter TA without snares...or with substantial degen that forces the runner to stop for healing here and there.

Imho HvH needs to go and TA needs to be pimped up the way Mephisto suggested...with a few exceptions to map changes =P.

Chase the Sky · May 18, 2007, 05:00 PM // 17:00

I agree with what Panda is saying <3.

I don't have anything else to add except maybe a /teabag emote when you flawless someone in under 45 seconds.

Hi all.

TheOneMephisto · May 18, 2007, 11:50 PM // 23:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patccmoi

See, if all you have is HvH maps + deathmatches (1v1 kill count and priest map is pretty much just deathmatch), that's not as bad. But i don't agree at all with adding tons of map types. Why? Because you have 4 players. The utility you can bring is already low enough. If you put too many 'required' utility, well you don't have anything left for build variety.

If what you want is to suggest 4v4 HvH and mix deathmatches in them, maybe it's ok. But even then, i think i'd prefer simply straight 4v4 HvH with no deathmatch. You shouldn't need to 'force' people into fighting with 4 players. With 4 players, it's easy to bring the utility required to stop pure running and actually use it decently (which heroes can't do) so that people have to fight without resorting to other map types. If it truly doesn't work, you could add possibly some Deathmatch mixed in them. But think about it, a build that'd be designed for pure running would likely be hell to kill in a deathmatch as they'd just kite you forever and you'd end up with that 'griefing' part again. Pure deathmatches with only 4 players leaves too much room to RPS for a ladder imo. It's fine for casual play cause taking a loss doesn't matter if you're going to have to fight that team 1 hour to kill them, but when it's on a ladder it's different.

I don't believe that pure deathmatches are bad in any way when mixed with the HvH battles. If you run with only HvH, you're going to run into the problem of the current HvH. However, if you mix them, neither pure split nor pure 4v4 will be able to win enough for it to be worth it (assuming random map selection OFC). Teams will have to be able to face off both ways.

Also, if you're worried about griefing, just put in some time limits (tourneys will need time limits to function either way). Say that at a certain time damage gets +25% and health gets -25%. Say that after some more time, damage gets another +15% and health gets another -15%. Then, finally, after some more time, the game ends and the game is determined by the team with the most kills, and ties otherwise.

But to be honest, if you're bringing the skills necessary to beat HvH, you shouldn't have a problem catching runners. Snares and speedboosts are useful in HvH also you know.

Lodurr · May 19, 2007, 07:39 AM // 07:39

I'd also like to see HvH with humans but it raises a few problems. Firstly, you could bring those all-healing griefing-type builds and do quite well. Balanced builds (i.e. a melee, a ranged attacker, a caster, and a monk) would be at a disadvantage to a team that runs and persistently caps and uses assassin crap to keep away from you.

Secondly, [skill]Recall[/skill]

Fighting four Recallers running teleway capping shrines would be the most boring shit ever.

So I think Panda's idea has some merit, that if you mix up the gametypes then the team has to be balanced out. I'm not sold on the exact mix of gametypes but HvH's format should be one of them. A ladder isn't even necessary, being fun and getting glad points is enough.

It's certainly something I hope they look into because a straight GvG guild like mine has nothing to do when we don't have 8 people on. AB is just about as fun as beating up suits of armor on the Isle of the Nameless, TA is buildwars, HA is 8v8 and also buildwars.

Patccmoi · May 19, 2007, 02:53 PM // 14:53

Alright, you're right saying that it could raise other issues if all there was is 4v4 HvH when you think of things like mass Recall. It WOULD get quite lame.

So with your idea, do you want to make all games a separate thing or a sequence (conseq wins, etc.)?

I think that a sequence alternating 1 random TA map then 1 random HvH map could be pretty good, and you could increase the reward as you win conseq maps (maybe not every map, but every few wins). Mostly it's because it has less 'chance factor' if you force people playing both than people coming in with more of a TA setup or some with more of a HvH setup and getting lucky/unlucky with their game type draw. There could also be some kind of matching system to also take into account your conseq wins along with your rating, dunno.

But i wouldn't add any new maps really, first because it's time consuming to make/balance them, and second because it's just 4 people and you can't fit that much utility on 4 people while still keeping any kind of build variety. But alternating random TA map with random HvH map could make for an interesting system that could be worthy of a ladder.