Curse

Jetdoc · Feb 21, 2007, 03:32 AM // 03:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by nohooiam

how come no one's willing to compromise for a 7 v 7?

How about 6 v 8? Two mandatory Err=07's on one side at the beginning of every match....keep things interesting!

Nkah Sennyt · Feb 21, 2007, 03:50 AM // 03:50

Where's the "8v8 without the new hall changes" option?

Since there isn't one, somewhat 6v6.

tomcruisejr · Feb 21, 2007, 03:57 AM // 03:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by masteroflife

How did every single r9 pvper start? Did we all start at r9???????? Explain That!

but there are some who started @ r9. ebayers.

and i support 7vs7 since i dont really care about 6vs6 or 8vs8 anymore.

Rene Saliere · Feb 21, 2007, 03:58 AM // 03:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by masteroflife

How did every single r9 pvper start? Did we all start at r9???????? Explain That.

I vote for 8v8.
End kill counts, it only promote spike builds and I believe I speak for most of the people here when I say "I am tired of calling spikes and I am tired to playing against spikes"

I don't understand what you want me to 'explain'. Perhaps you could explain.

If your point is that everyone starts PvP with no Rank (apart from Ebay Rankers and second hand accounts, which you omit to mention), then um... I agree.

gasmaskman · Feb 21, 2007, 04:00 AM // 04:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duelb0t

I strongly prefer 6v6, why?
im in small guild and if we have online:
4 ppls => TA
6 ppls => HA
8 ppls => GB

its logic, working and simple. let it 6vs6 pls.

Why should HA be 6v6 just so you can play it because you don't have enough for GvG?

Strongly 8v8, minus kill counts.

vapor311 · Feb 21, 2007, 04:21 AM // 04:21

Is anyone else tired of Arenanet asking us to do their job for them? Am I the only one? How about we stop asking the amateurs to fix the problems and step up to bat as the game developers and implement a solution which actually addresses the problems at hand. No band aids, no temporary solutions, no more "testing" weekends. Identify what direction you want the game to go, and take it there. Please, for the love of all that's holy, make a decision and stick with it.
I will say one other thing though, party size, 8v8 or 6v6, doesn't make a difference. Choosing one party size or the other won't fill up the districts, nor will map changes, or new maps.

Skye Marin · Feb 21, 2007, 04:37 AM // 04:37

I enjoyed 6v6 because of the added ease of creating a group and spending less time waiting, and more playing the game. It makes the game more accessible to new players, and I think that is in Anet's best interest.

8v8 has the potential to be pretty good, but before that, some changes need to happen. Anti-spike skills will need a serious buff (Xinrae's Weapon), and some victory conditions will need a change. 3-Way killcount is pretty confusing and not as quality as other gametypes.

I would really enjoy an early-rotation map in 8v8 that is best played with a 4-4 split. Control points and whatnot. One of the best ways to beat a spike is to split, and giving teams that option would go a long way to giving balanced builds better odds.

Based on the current metagame, I'd rather play 6v6, but with the right gameplay and skill changes, 8v8 has so much more potential for the experienced player.

Riotgear · Feb 21, 2007, 05:04 AM // 05:04

* 8v8
* Nerf Rit spike
* SoC+Stability+Claim Resource = stupid. Keep the new objectives, except for kill count, which over-encourages playing the mechanics instead of playing PvP.

Thom Bangalter · Feb 21, 2007, 05:18 AM // 05:18

The mechanics of 3 way kill counts are bad. Especially when you keep rezzing. At least let them DP out so the bad team can't be farmed constantly.

Kep · Feb 21, 2007, 05:30 AM // 05:30

Strongly prefer 8vs8 ~~

Take tomb's back to what it used to be after the burial mounds and broken tower changes in september 05.

Bigger party size means more people required to play, and guilds/pugs will find these extra people, thus more people will be playing Tomb's. And everoyne wants more people playing.

Let's have less skill nerfs, give things the time they need to settle, yes to start with people run lame spike builds, but eventually people will be running all sorts of different builds designed to counter the possible builds they could face. Much like what it was like at the early stages of 06 with teams running a variety of different builds: iway, bspike, dual mes, smite, balspikes, cond/hex pressure, rspike. If nerfs are constantly implemented people will just look to the nearest spike since their isn't enough time to develop new ideas.

Maybe we should see more maps, instead of the usual 8 maps required to reach Halls, make it 10, 12 even. This means teams can make reasonable amounts of fame without needing to hold halls, giving advantages to the innexperienced players. And more maps means more build variety, this build variety will make it harder for teams to hold Halls. And that was the problem before-hand - teams holding constantly and not giving oppertunity's to the lesser players. The tried and tested altar holding technique which has done the business for the last 2 years doesn't need to be altered.

Anyway, 8vs8 please!

Apok Omen · Feb 21, 2007, 05:42 AM // 05:42

Keep 8v8, take out Kill Count (or not, really don't care), and we will name a day after you... in a good way.

Turizmo · Feb 21, 2007, 06:31 AM // 06:31

I voted for 8v8, as I enjoy the team work involved with more players per team and the scope for builds increases. Although, I would like to see 6v6 come back for some, or at least one weekend each month, as it provides nice novalty value and a break from 8v8. For one, it got me playing HA again, poor ol Tiger got home-sick.

As for this whole Kill Count mechanic. Maybe look at what counts as a kill? I believe Killing Blow, as it stands currently is an easy way out for the programmers and not the best method to attribute a kill to a team. There are several ways you could manage this. But firstly, you need to store how much damage each team has done to that player and use that data to calculate who gets the kill. For instance, if two teams do pretty much equal damage (say 20% scope) then they both get a point, if one team does 20% more damage then they get the kill.

For degen this can be easily calculated as a percentage of total degen damage at that time. For example, when degen damage occurs the damage is calculated as such:-

Team A has 5 degen pips on Player 1, Team B has 10 degen pips Player 1
Team A takes 1/3 of the damage award, Team B takes 2/3

Anyway, just my two cents on Kill Count, maybe save that for another poll. Kill Count is a nice addition, just remove the kill stealing aspect and it'll work perfectly. To state the obvious, this will pretty much leave spike teams with a hard job on KC maps.

log1k · Feb 21, 2007, 06:34 AM // 06:34

Strongly prefer 8v8, I simply dont have fun in 6v6 so that's my vote.

As for the rest, I dont like capture points, I always hated AB for that. And Kill count just doesnt work. 3 way = gank fest / 2 way = score some kills and run around.

A king of the hill as we know it in HoH right now could work in broken tower and courtyard. I dont mind relic runs in HoH even tho it's boring.

Maybe find someone (outside of anet) to help with skill balance, there's a huge community that plays this game everyday for hours, they can help.

My 2 cents

Riotgear · Feb 21, 2007, 06:40 AM // 06:40

Kill count is unneccessary because it's not hard to make an objective that forces you to kill as many of your opponents as possible to achieve it. It's redundant. The fact that it even creates the question of what counts as a "kill" means that you wind up playing the mechanics (and lose build variety by playing it) rather than having natural PvP.

Oh yeah, another thing to do:

Don't give teams the lead unless they TAKE the lead! Seeing teams win relic offerings by being the most recent to TIE the score is stupid. Congrats, your team was slower, YOU WIN!! What the hell?

Turizmo · Feb 21, 2007, 06:54 AM // 06:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riotgear

Kill count is unneccessary because it's not hard to make an objective that forces you to kill as many of your opponents as possible to achieve it. It's redundant. The fact that it even creates the question of what counts as a "kill" means that you wind up playing the mechanics (and lose build variety by playing it) rather than having natural PvP.

Oh yeah, another thing to do:

Don't give teams the lead unless they TAKE the lead! Seeing teams win relic offerings by being the most recent to TIE the score is stupid. Congrats, your team was slower, YOU WIN!! What the hell?

I disagree with your point on Kill Count. Mainly because it adds variety to HA. You have to account for it in your build if you wish to do well. If you go all out damage then you'll be in trouble on Relic Maps, Alter Maps. Likewise if you go all out defensive you'll struggle on KC, DM type maps. It will promote balance.

I do agree with you on the TIE mechanic, to a degree. Although I can see the tactic of defending until the last minute taking out their Ghost then making a clinical break to cap. Maybe introduce Sudden Death where in the event of a TIE it's last man standing, or first Ghost to die.

Riotgear · Feb 21, 2007, 06:58 AM // 06:58

Quote:

You have to account for it in your build if you wish to do well.

I don't think you really need to account for anything that you wouldn't account for in King of the Hill, which is why I think it's redundant.

I don't really think they need sudden death, if a team takes longer to achieve the same amount of points, then it means they didn't perform as well, so it's fair to give the other team the win.

Psychic Watch · Feb 21, 2007, 07:04 AM // 07:04

As a neutral party, I still don't understand why there just isn't an option for both sizes, 8v8 AND 6v6. Or even mixing things up a bit, random party sizes too?

Going by the poll results, it seems there's enough supporters for both sizes to have enough players to go around.

Why not just give everyone the option, instead of this endless back-and-forth?

ayame ftw · Feb 21, 2007, 07:08 AM // 07:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord Mendes

Well Gaile it all depends, if you want to keep (crappy) Kill Counts and (imbalanced) ritualist skills the way they are, then 6v6 would seem like a better option.
If you want to change broken tower and courtyard to something fun and reasonable (NOT kill count), keep HoH objective random, and keep the skills balanced, then 8v8 is the way to go.

All I can say is that the kill count issue seems like a more pressing issue than the team size, because as you should know from your "testing", kill counts + imbalanced skills = crappy HA.

For me, the ideal system would be an 8 man HA with broken tower and courtyard as altar maps, HoH with a random objective, and balanced skills.

QFT, i cant realy vote 8v8 or 6v6 like mendes staited
it all depends on what u are planning to do about killcount, and sertain imba skills

subterra · Feb 21, 2007, 07:15 AM // 07:15

I strongly support 8v8 if halls is reverted back to old mechanics.

I strongly support 6v6 if it stays with the new mechanics.

Please listen to the players in regards to Capture points in Halls and killcounts on Broken/Courtyard. Capture points are no fun IMHO and I'm sure you know how bad killcount is. I love relic runs outside of halls but Murderball is meh at best.

I truly miss the post factions seeking days.

Zenos Squad · Feb 21, 2007, 07:26 AM // 07:26

I voted 8v8, but I think TA should be 6v6 and HA 8v8.

Back to old mechanics please and 8v8. Nothing more needed to say.