Curse

B Ephekt · May 13, 2007, 09:48 PM // 21:48

Delete and replace all the maps, or resize them to allow for tactical positioning and movement as well as splits. Maps will have two main paths; a front path leading to the central flag stand and a back path leading to the other team's base. Other minor paths may be added for variety.
Give each team an enclose base with a locked door. The door may only be opened by the opposing team with the aid of an NPC called a Thief.
Station the Ghostly Hero in either base; add 2 Knights and a Body Guard to protect him; add 3 Archers and 2 Footmen to protect the base entrance.
Remove alters, kill count and relic runs replacing them with a central flag stand. The flag stand is capped by running a flag to the obelisk. When a team holds this flag stand for two whole minutes they gain a morale boost.
Add a mechanic that forces players to tie up matches that have gone on too long. At 10 minutes all players receive a +50% damage buff, but take 25% more damage. At 15 minutes the Ghostly leaves the base and moves to the central flag stand with any remaining NPCs.
Allow players (and the Thief) to resurrect at a shrine inside their base every two minutes. Players who reach -60Dp will no longer rez at base and must me rezed by a teammate.
Add the following win conditions: Infiltrate the enemy's base and kill their Ghostly Hero; DP an entire team to -60.
Base match making on average team rank. For example, if an r3 team, an r5 team, an r7 team and an r9 team all enter at the same time, the r3 and 5 team will face each other while the r7 and 9 team will face each other.
Make losses incur a fame penalty equal to the amount that swung in the balance for that match. For example, a loss on your 5th match would incur a 6 fame penalty, while a win would award 6 fame.

Randomway Ftw · May 13, 2007, 10:01 PM // 22:01

Lol, funny post.

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

IMO, make rank swing dependent on average rank. For instance a r9 team vs a r1 team would have the r9 gaining 1 fame or losing 8 fame, while the r1 team would gain 8 fame or lose 1 fame. This could be increased or have it shift more positively as more games progress (3rd win or so have all positive fame shifts increased by 1 and negative fame shifts decrease by 1).

Death_From_Above · May 13, 2007, 10:58 PM // 22:58

lol carefuly buddy anet mite or shall i say will take you seriously lo.

Gimme Money Plzkthx · May 13, 2007, 11:09 PM // 23:09

Meh, I do believe you got the stats for VoD wrong.

B Ephekt · May 13, 2007, 11:20 PM // 23:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Death_From_Above

lol carefuly buddy anet mite or shall i say will take you seriously lo.

I don't see this as a bad thing. Tombs is inherently flawed: the mechanics, the small maps, lack of penalty for losses, etc. Tombs has been a joke arena for a long time, people are just kidding themselves by thinking it's not. Something needs to be done. Obviously I'm being a bit sarcastic in modeling my version after GvG, but making tombs more like GvG would not be a bad thing in my opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gimme Money Plzkthx

Meh, I do believe you got the stats for VoD wrong.

That particular bullet point was only loosely based on VoD, not an exact copy.

Llint · May 13, 2007, 11:31 PM // 23:31

This post should win post of the millennia.

gasmaskman · May 14, 2007, 12:30 AM // 00:30

The first step to making Halls a more respectable arena:

Allow splits, and give a reason to do it.

elektra_lucia · May 14, 2007, 01:01 AM // 01:01

Quote:

Make losses incur a fame penalty equal to the amount that swung in the balance for that match. For example, a loss on your 5th match would incur a 6 fame penalty, while a win would award 6 fame.

Bad idea. Getting the high ranks takes a lot of time, giving a penalty would just be silly.

Quote:

IMO, make rank swing dependent on average rank. For instance a r9 team vs a r1 team would have the r9 gaining 1 fame or losing 8 fame, while the r1 team would gain 8 fame or lose 1 fame. This could be increased or have it shift more positively as more games progress (3rd win or so have all positive fame shifts increased by 1 and negative fame shifts decrease by 1).

Sounds like something a rank1 would say, lol. =P

Quote:

The first step to making Halls a more respectable arena:

Allow splits, and give a reason to do it.

Why make HA gvg... Just for an emote, it would seem.

I think have something totally unique, why a thief or what not.. Is just like GVG

.

B Ephekt · May 14, 2007, 02:21 AM // 02:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by elektra_lucia

Bad idea. Getting the high ranks takes a lot of time, giving a penalty would just be silly.

That's ridiculous. Making losses subtract fame discourages farming with terrible builds. Seriously, there is no competitive game where losses don't hurt. If tombs is ever to be anything more than a joke, losses need to mean something.

I know how long obtaining rank takes, I've played a lot of HA. That's the whole point, rank doesn't actually require skill to obtain; only time. The point is that fame should be gained based on merit, not based on rolling noobs on the first few maps over and over and over. If you run shitty gimmick builds, you should have a penalty for losing to your counter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by elektra_lucia

Why make HA gvg... Just for an emote, it would seem.

I think have something totally unique, why a thief or what not.. Is just like GVG

.

Splitting allows balanced teams to out think and out play shitty gimmicks through tactics instead of facing them head on. Trying to beat rock with paper or scissors isn't fun, nor is it an indication of a balanced and skillful game.

As for why I modeled my suggestion after GvG, it's simple: GvG is the only form of pvp that's actually decent. It seems like most players would agree that HA sucks right now, so it's not like this is a new concept. I'm just thinking about how Anet could implement some of the better characteristics from other game modes, specifically GvG.

Mental Leteci · May 14, 2007, 09:37 AM // 09:37

I say remove fame, add ladder for solo/guild HoH wins.

Leteci for the king!

Elrodien · May 14, 2007, 09:48 AM // 09:48

Actually, a ladder probably is one way of adding some interest to HA but it would only be akin to flogging a dead horse. In fact (and in keeping with the horse anology), HA is so broken they should do to HA what they do to a lame horse i.e. Put it out of its misery.

FoxBat · May 14, 2007, 10:11 AM // 10:11

I know some guilds used to make more of it, and the place could use some help, but HA was *never supposed to be a serious arena!* It's a place that (theoretically) supports PuG play, and you don't have any rating to risk. A middle ground that is supposed to bridge to GvG and be a fun diversion for serious players. Yes, kill count and murderball is stupid, but no, the place will never have the strategy or balanced builds of GvG, nor does it need to!

elektra_lucia · May 14, 2007, 10:26 AM // 10:26

Quote:

That's ridiculous. Making losses subtract fame discourages farming with terrible builds. Seriously, there is no competitive game where losses don't hurt. If tombs is ever to be anything more than a joke, losses need to mean something.

Team Arena, Random Arena. They're no more or less competitive than HA. Changing HA in such a drastic way when people have worked for two years for fame is ridiculous. Sure make big changes but changing the way in which you gain fame to incure a penalty is dumb.

Quote:

As for why I modeled my suggestion after GvG, it's simple: GvG is the only form of pvp that's actually decent

Then go play GVG? No need to make another arena like GVG.

Quote:

rank doesn't actually require skill to obtain; only time.

I don't see where it states you had to be good to win anyway? Regardless, those more skilled that play equally with the same skilled partners, will actually gain rank more quickly. You have GVG - go to GVG. Don't make HA like GVG, just spice it up - keep the fame system...

This whole skill argument in such a game is retarded anyway, to note:

The game itself changes, you don't see any competitive game change in such a way. It's like someone changing all the weapons in CS everytime some idiots shout 'camper' or 'awp noob'.

There is no ping display. How can you take a game seriously when the server could be American, one player could live next door to it, the other could be in Australia. One player on a 100mbit connection, the other with a 56k modem.

One pinging 2000, the other pinging 16. You get a team of 8 with such high pings and team of 8 with low, how on earth is that competitive? Tell me, generally - if a european team is fighting an American team for favour how are the pings going to be even? Last time I flew over the atlantic I do NOT remember seeing a computer in the middle of ocean. Which means, the server is either in europe or america - one team (generally) must be pinging higher (by a lot) than the other team.

The game you can use random people... I wouldn't say a truely competitive game would allow you to use random people.

luilui · May 14, 2007, 02:28 PM // 14:28

many ppl have suggested what HA should be. but imo i think we first need to decide what is it supposed to be. It's like buying a car, if we don't know what is it for we wont be able to decide what kind of car we r going to get. Atm some ppl look at HA as a serious pvp arena, some ppl take it as their playground to mess about. I think this question can only be answered by either Anet or poll.

Mental Leteci · May 14, 2007, 05:45 PM // 17:45

Penalty for losing by dropping your fame is a bad idea cause you would ruin the whole fame system. You can't change something that is there from start (like Anet tried with 6v6 and failed), but you could add a ladder where you would lose/win and get better/worse stats on it.

TheOneMephisto · May 14, 2007, 09:03 PM // 21:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by elektra_lucia

Sounds like something a rank1 would say, lol. =P

Or we're just playing make HA more like GvG, and thats the closest thing you could get to an ELO system.

Gimme Money Plzkthx · May 14, 2007, 09:28 PM // 21:28

Making HA like GvG or adding in/encouraging splits would be a bad idea, because we already have GvG for that.

BeatWolf · May 14, 2007, 11:11 PM // 23:11

I loled when i read the OP. Dude your just suggesting to make HA totally like GvG and would be such a stupid thing to do. Oh and the "Make losses incur a fame penalty equal to the amount that swung in the balance for that match. For example, a loss on your 5th match would incur a 6 fame penalty, while a win would award 6 fame" is the stupidest suggestion iv'e heard for a while.

HA will never be like GvG and never should be, why don't you stop making ideas and keep playing GvG.

Gimme Money Plzkthx · May 15, 2007, 02:50 AM // 02:50

Why don't you learn to recognize sarcasm. *sigh* people in this world...