Curse

yesitsrob · May 13, 2007, 07:54 AM // 07:54

I think, HvH blows... and it wouldn't bother me normally, except it's clear than a ton of resources were poured into trying to make it work.... No one used to play it before it's update, the list of consistent HvH'ers was about 2 or 3 people.

Now that they've pushed it still barely has a following, except for the first couple of days where it was quite popular. Sad thing is the format absolutely sucks. TA, HA, HvH were all very bad formats to push, but out of the 3 HvH was by far the worse choice.

Grind in WoW is way better than this 1v1 tripe.

ATs completely fail too. That's another matter.

Warskull · May 13, 2007, 02:21 PM // 14:21

As some people have mentioned, players from top guilds do play HvH. However, I never hear them say anything good about HvH. They tend to complain about it when they play and they certainly don't seem to be enjoying it. In fact now that HvH has an obs mode it is all about stealing the best build and abusing it.

The real crime about HvH is that it has fairly decent maps and mechanics. The retarded heroes simply ruin it and roll everything that is bad about Guild Wars into one little ball. However, if HvH got rid of the heroes and let you take in 4 players it would be a good mini-GvG type.

urania · May 13, 2007, 05:17 PM // 17:17

or maybe just transfer those maps over to TA (;.

TheOneMephisto · May 13, 2007, 05:28 PM // 17:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by suiraCLAW

That would require such an insane amount of coordination between the players that 90% of the whole pvp player base wouldn't play it.

And that's exactly why I would like it

.

Still, I'd rather have an "exclusive" AB where you can enter with guild teams of 12 people.

TBH, it wouldn't require THAT much coordination. With small maps and only 7-8 (other players + merc) other things to keep in mind, it would be significantly less attention-requiring than GvG IMO. The main problem I would find is that it would put heavy emphasis on 1v1 skills, as every battle would probably degenerate into 3-4 groups on each team running around dueling stuff, with occasional attempts at collapsing. Success would be entirely dependent on who is better at soloing stuff, and possibly who has the better 3v3 or 4v4 build if people actually converge.

Patccmoi · May 13, 2007, 07:51 PM // 19:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheOneMephisto

TBH, it wouldn't require THAT much coordination. With small maps and only 7-8 (other players + merc) other things to keep in mind, it would be significantly less attention-requiring than GvG IMO. The main problem I would find is that it would put heavy emphasis on 1v1 skills, as every battle would probably degenerate into 3-4 groups on each team running around dueling stuff, with occasional attempts at collapsing. Success would be entirely dependent on who is better at soloing stuff, and possibly who has the better 3v3 or 4v4 build if people actually converge.

It wouldn't require more coordination than GvG or even some HA maps... it would be VERY manageable with voice com.

Personally, i love skirmishes in PvP and i know many other players who do. In GvG, it's very fun to play a ranger or split warriors and go in little skirmishes of 1v1 to 3v3 where your own player skill actually influences the outcome a lot and where there is often no monks so that healing is limited and interrupts are key to score kills.

I think that HvH with 4 real players would allow a lot of small skirmishes and could be VERY fun. It could even be a format where you can bring no real healer on the team and still have a good chance to win since you're never really forced in a 4v4 situation. It has various objectives since you can win through altar holding or player kill, which is a good way to keep gimmicks in check. It really has everything that's required to be a competitive 4v4 arena imo, it only has one real problem... and it's heroes. That they FORCE heroes on you. I wouldn't give a damn if they leave a ladder of 1v1 HvH, but WHY don't they allow 4v4 players to take part too? It would require SO LITTLE of them to do that and could only please people as it doesn't take anything away from anyone (sure some player that only want to 1v1 will possibly complain for one reason or another but it would please much more players especially if they KEEP that 1v1 arena... hell just add a separate district set for 1v1 so that you have like American, International, 1v1 and people join where they want).

I'm really annoyed that ANet doesn't allow something like 4v4 HvH with players and full team ABs. Even if there isn't much reward in there other than faction. Even if there's no ladder. Why not just let people PLAY? If it gets popular, then consider adding a ladder or something. Don't force a ladder and very good rewards in an arena nobody played to try to make it popular.

I'd be very very happy to see ANet go away from a 'restrictive' attitude (ATs require 8 people from the guild at set times, AB requires 3 random teams, HvH is with heroes only) and actually have an attitude that helps people to PLAY WHAT THEY LIKE. Help GvG be more accessible, not less. Leave a place where you could run full AB fights with 2 complete teams (and honestly nobody would give a damn if it doesn't move the line if that's a concern). Leave a place where you can play 'HvH' with 4 players. Let people enjoy the game... you create tons of potentially awesome stuff but you just don't let people play them as they'd like, which makes GW one of the most frustrating game in history. So much potential that people cling to it hoping it will be reached...

drekmonger · May 13, 2007, 08:29 PM // 20:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patccmoi

it would be VERY manageable with voice com.

And that's the problem. GvG is a great format, but you need voice coms and seven other willing people to play. For the GvG ATs, you need seven other willing people, voice coms, and five hours of your life.

HvH meta is absolutely terrible in it's current state. I'm totally down with that. BUT: it's a format you can play instantly, without waiting, without fussing. Making it into a 4v4 mode means it'll be a crappy format with the waiting and futzing with voice coms. Misses the point entirely.

You only have to look at the popularity of HvH ATs vs. GvG ATs to see the bloody point. Ease entry and a crappy format > difficult entry and a fanstatic format. (I don't 100% know that the population of HvH ATs are much higher than GvG ATs. But I bet that is the case.)

I don't think the PvP community as a whole realizes what a huge disincentive organized play is to a person joining a game. There's a reason why the RA is populated and TA isn't. Fact of the matter is: casual players outnumber organized PvP players by a vast margin.

Organized PvP has it's place and is important. The most fun I've had in Guild Wars has been in organized GvG teams. But it got to the point where worrying about being online at a certain time to meet a team, having worry about voice coms and e-drama, just overshadowed the fun meter.

Quote:

I'm really annoyed that ANet doesn't allow something like 4v4 HvH with players and full team ABs. Even if there isn't much reward in there other than faction. Even if there's no ladder. Why not just let people PLAY? If it gets popular, then consider adding a ladder or something. Don't force a ladder and very good rewards in an arena nobody played to try to make it popular.

More modes? GW should have less modes. The population is spread out enough as it is. GW doesn't have the numbers to support every mode that it has now, nevermind more. Imo, it's should be GvG, the Arenas, and some sort of 1v1. Those three modes, with ladders from the start, and never another added.

(it sounds like GW2 might go down this road? World PvP for casual fun and a single mode for organized play?)

A ladder and rewards is absolutely key to convincing people to play a mode. Do you think anyone would play HA if there was no fame or chest to farm? How long do you think interest in GvG would persist if there was no ladder? Besides, ladders are important for more than just rewards -- they enable matchmaking.

TheOneMephisto · May 13, 2007, 08:39 PM // 20:39

drekmonger, you use the fact that TA isn't populated, but then you say that any format without a ladder or rewards will die. Guess why TA is dead? And the only reason RA is populated is that it's one of the few arenas that you can be crappy, have no connections, and still win. However, very few of those RAers will ever get to high-level PvP, because they have no incentive to get better either.

But seriously, voice coms are everywhere and easy to get. It isn't hard to get 4 people on, especially when you can reach out through networks of friends and guildies. Back in [TA], we'd be TAing for hours a day simply because getting 4 people was so easy.

drekmonger · May 13, 2007, 09:23 PM // 21:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheOneMephisto

But seriously, voice coms are everywhere and easy to get.

I have (at least) four different voice chat clients installed on three different computers at my current location. But I still couldn't get on voice coms in the here and now (at this precise moment) without having to endure some kind of real life annoyance. Voice coms are everywhere, but some (most?) people can't always use them with impunity.

Not to mention deaf/hard of hearing people, or people who can't speak properly due to disability. Or girls who just don't want to get on voice coms because of the way some males react to a female voice. Or people who speak a language outside the GW norm.

Quote:

very few of those RAers will ever get to high-level PvP, because they have no incentive to get better either.

You mean like a 1v1 Ladder with observation mode? There's incentive, rewards and the capacity to learn from others. A frequent 1v1 player can even earn connections for getting into GvG matches, via talking to other 1v1 players.

Granted, the current 1v1 meta is rewarding a skillset that has very little application outside of Hero Battles. That's a problem with the mechanics, not the basic idea of 1v1 ladder.

TheOneMephisto · May 13, 2007, 09:35 PM // 21:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by drekmonger

You mean like a 1v1 Ladder with observation mode? There's incentive, rewards and the capacity to learn from others. A frequent 1v1 player can even earn connections for getting into GvG matches, via talking to other 1v1 players.

Granted, the current 1v1 meta is rewarding a skillset that has very little application outside of Hero Battles. That's a problem with the mechanics, not the basic idea of 1v1 ladder.

1v1 will never teach you the skills needed to play high-end GvG in GW, simply because of how GW is built as a team game. Microing semi-retarded heroes is nothing like organizing tactics, pushes, collapses, etc. with 7 other intelligent players. Dueling can teach you some things, but still can never teach you the majority of the skills needed. Running around pressing 1-2-3-4-5 will never teach you how to watch the battlefield, to kite effectively, or any of the million other things you need.

However, organizing tactics, pushes, etc. with 3 other intelligent players can teach you many of the skills needed for doing it with 7 others. 4v4 is great for teaching skills that you need for GvG, as you get a chance to learn all of the skills that you need to be decently successful in a 7v7 or 8v8 situation, and once you get into GvG all you need to do is to get use to doing it with more people, and to learn some more GvG-specific things (splitting, flagging, NPCs).

And for emphasis, it's almost impossible for ANet to implement a 1v1 system of any kind that will actually teach you a lot of the things needed for GvG, as the smartest AI in the world just can't do the things that another human player can.

selber · May 14, 2007, 01:08 AM // 01:08

The biggest problem I have with Hero Battles is the interface. I play at 1280x1024 and use mousewalk most of the time. With all the heropanels and the u-windows permanently open my screen is really full. Somehow the interface looks very superimposed, if that's the right word. I mean, compare a HvH-interface of GW to the one in C&C3 for example. In C&C3 you can hotkey and shortcut your whole buildmanagment, leaving you alot of time to micro your units with your mouse. In GW you have to click everything on little icons and sometimes you even can't control or check your "units", because they are out of range. This all results in a very slow, cumbersome gameplay and I really don't have the feeling I can really "control" heroes, because often, they just do what they want or do stupid things, like attacking pets or getting stuck by other heroes and make no attempt to move.

The best thing you can do in HvH is playing something the AI lacks and give your heroes some builds monkeys can play (Toucher, Packmaster etc) - and as far as I can see, AI has the biggest problems with monking (e-managment, skillselect). So it's quite predictable, people who choose to go monk will win in the long terms.

While it's a good thing for marketing (FAQ: "Is there a 1v1-mode in GW?"), pushing HvHs was a very bad decision from a competitive point of view. There might be a few people who enjoy this, but as far as I can tell from the people I know - most really don't bother or dislike HvHs.

XvArchonvX · May 14, 2007, 08:52 PM // 20:52

HB is meh. I play PvE because I want to gain stuff and explore places/things. I play PvP because I want a challenging way to use skills and strategy against intelligent enemies. Saturating 'PvP' with heroes just kills it for me...

wuzzman · May 22, 2007, 07:47 PM // 19:47

*Third Chapter

Give us new ways to pvp.

ANet: Here HvH.

What the RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GO anet! WE DON'T NEED THAT

*Next chapter

Give us new pvp

Anet:.....

Luna Star · May 23, 2007, 05:28 AM // 05:28

^HvH isn't PvP, It's PvE, you are playing against AI.
Anyway HB's are like a rotten apple no matter what you do with it, it's still rotten, some will eat it but it'll never change the fact thats it's rotten.

Blame the Monks · May 23, 2007, 12:32 PM // 12:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by wuzzman

*Third Chapter

Give us new ways to pvp.

ANet: Here HvH.

What the RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GO anet! WE DON'T NEED THAT

*Next chapter

Give us new pvp

Anet:.....

More like:

PvP: Add reconnects, tweak balance a bit, and give us free UAX! GW is close to being be the best pvp MMO ever!
Anet: Have some AB, conceptually flawed classes, and spirit spam.

PvP: RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GO this shit is awful. And its just fragmenting the pvp community. What we need is to fix balance please. And we still need better pvp support, more than ever now.
Anet: afk brb....

PvP: No seriously, this needs help. GW is now build wars.
Anet: RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GO you. By feedback we meant "yes men" and lots of lemontarts. We don't want to hear you don't want to use what we want to make.

PvP: Balance MUST be fixed. PvP barriers to entry MUST be lowered.
Anet: Have roughly 3634523452345 more imba skills and two more imba classes.

PvP: Balance is horrid. Even top 20 tournament play is now dominated by gay maps and gimmicks. We are only here because of what GW was in the past. It must be fixed. Game balance prevents any real competition. On top of that, AB sucks, no one cares about HvH, and the community resents what you did to HoH.
Anet: Don't worry, we will fix this when ATs come out....in 9 months.

PvP: ....
Anet: Woot! We added an HvH ladder, ATs, and more minipets! PvPers rejoice!
PvP: ....
Anet: Wha? Where did everyone go?
Anet2: I think they are playing wow with izzy.

__________________________

How many times can we beg anet to fix game balance? Did they think we were kidding the last 14 months? Now its just a matter of finding something to do as we wait for Fury, SC2, and/or Warhammer because GW is dead because of the mismanagement of anet. And I, for one, won't be coming back. I gave anet some props for great game design in the early days and good support. But it just got worse over time. Bad management, bad focus, and poor communication. Its diablo2 1.10 all over again.

GW was a great game was wasted by refusal to adapt or respond to the pvp community. It could have been the next major franchise. Now it will be just another footnote.

Mekkakat · May 23, 2007, 12:44 PM // 12:44

ouch Blame the Monks lolz. i have to sadly agree, although i will continue playing, because i just have too many roots in this darn game.. although i WILL be playing other MMOs FINALLY! woo! get ready for super sweet summer when all the titles hit

Skuld · May 23, 2007, 01:09 PM // 13:09

Blame the Monks · May 23, 2007, 01:13 PM // 13:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skuld

Did you read that and feel better, worse, or put off. GGs job is to pacify us and/or put us off without actually changing anything...

Skuld · May 23, 2007, 01:29 PM // 13:29

Oh, don't get me wrong, i'm not gonna be soothed by anything she says.. lol.

She ignored the rest about what they're doing and when they're doing it, and talked about shampoo.

Mekkakat · May 23, 2007, 02:53 PM // 14:53

amen Skuld. are you and i the only two that don't bow down to everything she says? lolz

Blame the Monks · May 23, 2007, 02:58 PM // 14:58

I don't think its GGs fault. I think she is a decent person and a lot more patient than most of us would be. But still, let's be realistic. She is a nongamer and her job description is to be a barrier between the devs and the community.