Curse

Gustin · Feb 21, 2007, 12:52 AM // 00:52

I voted strongly 8v8. I'm old school myself and though the only complaints about the 8v8 test weekend I had was the kill count. I could deal with everything else. The problem with 6v6 is the gimmick builds. It's always the same builds over and over. You either have an SF group, or a holding group, and maybe a balanced. But the problem with this is certain classes in the game get left out. I myself enjoy playing my ranger more than any class in the game, and during the 8v8 weekend I saw more playtime on this character in HA than I have seen in a long time. People respect the utility of other classes, but in 6v6 it's just not feasible to work them in with such strict setups required. Same thing with warriors, they got more of a playboost in the 8v8 than they normally do in 6v6. (and no, i'm not talking about I-WAY).

The spikes are relatively easy to beat anyways. Most Necro and Rit spikes I ran into during 8v8 stayed relatively close together. This was a huge advantage for me playing a choking gas ranger, as half of their spikes never completed.

8v8 for life.

Kakumei · Feb 21, 2007, 12:54 AM // 00:54

8v8, drop Kill Count, but do not bring back the old Altar mechanic.

Patccmoi's suggestion earlier in the thread was pretty much ideal.

Lews · Feb 21, 2007, 01:02 AM // 01:02

Gaile if you guys make it 8v8 again I will personally drive to your guys' offices the next all national American holiday, and bring cookies.

Randomway Ftw · Feb 21, 2007, 01:23 AM // 01:23

ANET, you made a mistake before by instituting 6v6, now many of the same people who supported 6v6 are supporting unwanted mechanics changes, please don't make another mistake and keep them.

Lykan · Feb 21, 2007, 01:24 AM // 01:24

/sigh

Didnt we do this already?

8v8 pls.

Rey Lentless · Feb 21, 2007, 02:13 AM // 02:13

8v8 allows balanced builds much much more. It allows you to fit in utility and counter skills while still having a build that does it's own thing. While spiking can be more powerful w/ 8 instead of 6, the added room to pack in counters to these spikes more than balances this out.

The problem is the kill count maps that make pressure builds more unattractive. I don't think it's game breaking and I do think balanced pressure builds can still succeed, but it is harder for them because of this. I like the varied win conditions, but I would prefer a different format other than kill count.

selber · Feb 21, 2007, 02:24 AM // 02:24

6v6 would be better for the game. (IMO)
8v8 fits better for the skill of the average players and their average understatement. (IMO)

nohooiam · Feb 21, 2007, 02:30 AM // 02:30

i prefer the 7 v 7 option.

its just enough for spikes/funky builds and still give balanced builds enough variety.

keltik · Feb 21, 2007, 02:33 AM // 02:33

I would rather 8v8 than 6v6, because there is more variety in the builds. Granted there are certain builds that will always be run by certain groups and guilds, but my guild runs balanced often and also rainbow spikes, and we were able to come up with a number of different balanced builds that did reasonably well during the time of the 8v8 testing period. And none of the cookie cutter rit spike or zergway builds bothered us that much with the balanced builds. We hit halls a few dozen times, and even won a few. If we had more time, we would be able to come up with even better balanced builds and subsequently have more fun. Which is what it is really about. I like coming home from work and hopping on GW and 8v8ing....while gvg is 8v8 it is not the same as HA, there are different maps, and different tactics and strategies for each. Plus there are more opportunities for pugs to get in groups helping them too to also get some fame and subsequently rank, which I think would keep some of the newer PvP players playing the game.

keltik · Feb 21, 2007, 02:34 AM // 02:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Randomway Ftw

ANET, you made a mistake before by instituting 6v6, now many of the same people who supported 6v6 are supporting unwanted mechanics changes, please don't make another mistake and keep them.

I never supported 6v6.

Randomway Ftw · Feb 21, 2007, 02:36 AM // 02:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by keltik

I never supported 6v6.

I was talking about people who supported 6v6 in general.

kidkid · Feb 21, 2007, 02:43 AM // 02:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomcruisejr

about 8vs8, the only reason really for 8vs8 is to be able to play a successful spike build, really. if you say otherwise, you're bsing and in denial.

I kinda disagreed with you there, cuz you can also spike with 6 vs 6.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vanquisher

People who complain about 8 vs. 8 feeding Ritualist spike don't realise it's just as effective when run in 6 vs. 6, if not moreso. The loss of 2 offensive characters from the downgrade in party size means you can't put out enough decent pressure to stop the spike team, you can't interrupt them to a decent degree, whatever.

And as for you, check the HOH, see if it is ALL RITUALIST SPIKE since now it is 6v6. I don't think so. Last week HOH was almost all Ritulaist Spike or Paragon Spike. You should ask how the GOOD HA MONKS feel about 8v8 and 6v6 ritualist spike.

IF the skills and the system for HA changes.... ya, maybe 8 v 8. But now my opinion is for the system(kill count, etc) right now plus all those skills. 6 v 6 is definitely my pick.

Oren The Destroyer · Feb 21, 2007, 02:46 AM // 02:46

8v8
No kill count
No holding

Out of what the 8v8 supporters want, this is basically what people want yes?

nohooiam · Feb 21, 2007, 02:59 AM // 02:59

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

obviously 8 v 8 was too much about skill synergies and 6 v 6 isnt enough. 7 v 7 would give all types of builds a equal chance.

Made In Ascalon · Feb 21, 2007, 03:00 AM // 03:00

I voted strongly 6 vs 6...because I dare to be different! Bet you didn't see that one coming, ANet!

kidkid · Feb 21, 2007, 03:00 AM // 03:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by nohooiam

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

LOL, i don't mind giving it a try, but u know what? Everyone will start complaining very soon, just like 6 vs 6 lol

infymys · Feb 21, 2007, 03:17 AM // 03:17

8v8 = more utility and more fun.
Gimmick spike builds are easily beaten with a strong balanced group.

My ideas:

-Change Broken Tower and Courtyard back to altar holding.
-Bring back Scarred Earth and take out the lever. Make this a killcount map. First two teams to hit x amount of kills then face each other in a timed killcount.
-Rotating objectives instead of random in Halls. Replace King of the Hill with old fashioned altar holding.

Lord Natural · Feb 21, 2007, 03:22 AM // 03:22

If the crappy new altar mechanics are staying, I strongly prefer 6v6.

If you change altars back to their original form, I strongly prefer 8v8.

Rene Saliere · Feb 21, 2007, 03:24 AM // 03:24

Well, yeah the more the better. Consider these PvP biases in Guild Wars:

*PvP controls access PvE to the Underworld and Fissure of Woe in all three Campaigns.

*Heroes' Ascent results are the only posts in our chat windows we can't block out: 'Shadow Death Pwnzors have won HoH and for no logical reason control your PvE access to high end areas of the game!' - Thanks for reminding me. Why don't you give me a paper cut and pour lemon juice on it...(1)

*PvP and PvE not only have many mutually exclusive attractions to players, but mutually exclusive tactics and skills.

So, in the absence of Anet altering this dynamic of PvP control/labelling of PvE areas, even our chat windows, the more opportunities for newbie PvPers to get a chance to play, the better.

I'm sorry that it will make HA games more frustrating to organise, but this is a strategic vote, because currently PvE have no other way to get access to some of their most important late game playing areas.

(1) - Princess Bride.

masteroflife · Feb 21, 2007, 03:31 AM // 03:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rene Saliere

Well, yeah the more the better. Consider these PvP biases in Guild Wars:

*PvP controls access PvE to the Underworld and Fissure of Woe in all three Campaigns.

*PvP controls access PvE to Urgoz and Deep Elite Missions.

*Heroes' Ascent results are the only posts in our chat windows we can't block out: 'Shadow Death Pwnzors have won HoH and for no logical reason control your PvE access to high end areas of the game!' - Thanks for reminding me. Why don't you give me a paper cut and pour lemon juice on it...(1)

*Any vague sense of immersion in the game storyline is challenged by entering a Factions' outpost and reading 'Owned by Shadow Death Pwnzors' in big letters across the screen.

*PvP and PvE not only have many mutually exclusive attractions to players, but mutually exclusive tactics and skills.

So, in the absence of Anet altering this dynamic of PvP control/labelling of PvE areas, even our chat windows, the more opportunities for newbie PvPers to get a chance to play, the better.

I'm sorry that it will make HA games more frustrating to organise, but this is a strategic vote, because currently PvE have no other way to get access to some of their most important late game playing areas.

(1) - Princess Bride.

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"