Curse

coleslawdressin · Mar 21, 2007, 07:44 AM // 07:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billiard

First of all, I don't really care if HA is 8v8 or 6v6. I like 8v8 for a variety of reasons, but like most civilized people I can appreciate that some folks do like 6v6.

I understand there are reasons for 6v6. I don't think that they are better ones than for 8v8, so call me biased. Would you as someone who claims to be unbiased say though that whatever reasons for 6v6 are strong enough to justify removing 8v8 in favor of 6v6? If so please explain.

Nobody would care about people wanting 6v6 if it didn't mean removing 8v8 too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billiard

And yes there was a huge gap between the haves and the havenots back then in terms of fame, and probably that was something that ANet was trying to address since HA used to be the entry point for a lot of people into more serious PvP.

So the solution is to make a lot of hardcore players quit in favor of PVE players, of course. I started in November '05, after spirit spam and dual smite had been nerfed and there were quite a few rank 9's, and had no trouble getting very close to rank 11 before 6v6 came and I quit. I see no difference as well between 6v6 or 8v8 in terms of the ability to farm fame, nor any reason to believe that ANET made their decision for this reason.

Making tombs 6v6 absolutely in no way eases people into higher level GVG. I have heard tons of people say this and it is flat out wrong and stupid. Let's look at one of the major complaints people have about 8v8: too many spikes.

Spiking is part of GVG and almost every decent guild calls at least adrenal spikes some of the time. As a monk you are also guaranteed to face spikes. Not knowing how to infuse is one way that 6v6 retards player growth. Not just monks, warriors might learn a bit about positioning. Also, even 6v6v6 doesn't compare to VOD in a GVG in terms of the intensity.

So there is one strike against 6v6 in regards to "moving people up in PVP". I could probably think of more but I can't imagine any for 8v8. 6v6 feels like TA to me in terms of pace. Even TA is better than 6v6 because there are no strange objectives and the typical 1 monk scenario trains you for split-monk situations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billiard

................ A lot of the changes that have been made to game in the past year seem to me to be specifically geared towards helping people make the transition to PvP, because its not very easy to do........

Like AB? I have no problem with getting new players into PVP and have made suggestions before to try to help that problem but they are unrelated to this 6v6/8v8 thing. I think we should get better in game rewards for PVP too. AB is good for that, but I won't play it because of random pairings.

Again, do you feel that removing 8v8 is justified when it is clear that more people prefer it? We aren't talking about RA/TA/AB. We are talking about 1 step down from GVG.

Let me debunk another common argument for 6v6: We don't have enough on to GVG so we want to play tombs.

First of all, between 6 whole competent GVGers they can't find 2 friends or even PUGs that they don't mind playing with? Now look at in reverse. When you actually DO have 8 on but you just want to test a build, or play with your guild in a less competitive fashion, you can't do that anymore anywhere. We used to run GVG builds in tombs for various reasons. Maybe to test a recruit or some new characters for a build or just to see how strong our backline was.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billiard

I also stand by my contention that the old run a holding build and shoot for a hall skip mechanic was not what the devs intended HA to be. So no matter how fun people found that, I don't see why the devs should leave it broken if they thought they could fix it and make it work they way they originally designed it to.

I don't disagree that that type of behavior wasn't intended. Part of the reason that it worked was how unpopular tombs is! 6v6 has caused even less people to play.

Don't mix up people who want old altar holding only with people who want 8v8. I support the idea of making changes but they still have problems to fix (kill count).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billiard

As far as working on HA, I said yes they ignored HA for a long time and then it became more of a priority and more recently they have been working hard on it. And yes I do know they have been and are currently working hard on it, and I also do know that they are trying not to rush into changes like they did in the past, but rather want to make sure things are indeed going to work as the devs intend.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billiard

ANet has really been working hard on HA issues pretty much non-stop since before my visit in January.

Sorry I must have misinterpreted the sentence you typed in English "non stop since before January" to mean they have been working hard non stop since GW was released until January. I don't think saying that something someone says is stupid is a personal attack. Sorry for taking what you say at face value.

Patccmoi · Mar 21, 2007, 02:22 PM // 14:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by coleslawdressin

First of all, between 6 whole competent GVGers they can't find 2 friends or even PUGs that they don't mind playing with? Now look at in reverse. When you actually DO have 8 on but you just want to test a build, or play with your guild in a less competitive fashion, you can't do that anymore anywhere. We used to run GVG builds in tombs for various reasons. Maybe to test a recruit or some new characters for a build or just to see how strong our backline was.

Actually, with the current ladder there's really no reason to go test something in HA (even if it was 8v8) where the meta is TOTALLY different than just test it straight in GvG as losses hardly matter at all. I used to do the same thing to test, but at this point if tombs was returned to 8v8 i would still not test GvG setups in there.

As for being easier to play with 6 than with 8, it's just true and please at least don't argue that it isn't. Any time we're 4-5, we'll fill and go HA, which is actually why i HAed regularly in the past weeks. If we're 6, we might fill for GvG true, but at 4-5 we won't, and if it was 8v8 HoH i'm really not sure that i would try to fill for HA either because in general i just dislike PuGs a lot (because i tend to run uncommon builds and PuGs people never grasp that 99% of the time and if we lose once they'll want to change the full build to what they know because they're convinced they know better, and the higher the rank the worse this part gets in general even though most of the people in our group is R9+).

I'm not saying that those are sufficient reasons to keep 6v6 over 8v8 though. I played enough 6v6 by now to seriously feel the problem with the lack of room for utility that severly limit the kind of balanced setups you can run. There's various gimmicks you can pick from (and honestly for every1 that keeps saying that there's no variety in tombs and then say they didn't play since weeks, you're the ones not really knowing what you're talking about on the account. Right now tombs variety is actually as big as it was in 8v8 time), but if you want more balanced teams it's really hard to fit all the required utility and this hurts the game. We make our own builds which actually changes most of the time we go in with fairly original templates and we can win and do well maybe 90% of the games, but once in a while a build will pop up that we just don't have the utility required in our setup to handle (take bonder + Aegis chain, well we don't always have sufficient enchant removal and if you rely on melee damage at all you're kinda screwed. But if we add more enchant removal then we might lack utility for murder ball, or lack killing power for kill count, or lack survivability for king of the hill, etc.)

So i AM in favor of 8v8. Fully. But dismissing the arguments of people that prefer 6v6 as if they didn't matter isn't actually helping imo. Because some of those arguments ARE valid. I mean hell, i want a 8v8 HA cause i think it's better but at the same time i know that if HA goes back to 8v8 i'll likely play HA a LOT less than i do now because when we're 4-5 we'll just do... i dunno what, and when we can actually get 8 we'll GvG. And it's not that i won't like HA, i have fun in there atm (and i can say that i didn't with the old format, even when i was holding hall i usually found it more boring than anything), it's just that the player requirement won't really allow me to play in there anymore. But i prefer a better arena for those who will play there than one that will fit my needs but i know to be worse than it could be.

Death_From_Above · Mar 21, 2007, 05:51 PM // 17:51

I understand what yours saying but i dont fully agree with the 6v6 argument u put forth about when you have 5 ect. I take it your main proffession is gvg correct? HAers, some pug, some build up there friends list an play with friends. Some with HA guilds (well used to). Quite a few dont play with a guild team therefore although it would be good for you being your a gvger i take it correct me if im wrong. For the majority of players who HA regularly it basically wouldnt work for them. Because its not something like where it wont affect them if its 6v6 much because they can go 2 somethin else like gvg. But a pure HAer who say just comes on for HA, its not he can play it either way its more of he can play it or theres no alternatives so they just quit if u get my point?

coleslawdressin · Mar 21, 2007, 06:54 PM // 18:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patccmoi

Actually, with the current ladder there's really no reason to go test something in HA (even if it was 8v8) where the meta is TOTALLY different than just test it straight in GvG as losses hardly matter at all. I used to do the same thing to test, but at this point if tombs was returned to 8v8 i would still not test GvG setups in there.

This makes no sense to me at all. ATs aren't out yet and -3 (or a string of them) would matter a lot to me, especially if we were holding above 1200. I remember one time when we beat a top american guild, they were testing out a new monk player. I am pretty sure that made them stop for the night. You just need some general 8v8 combat to test how well a single player/build works with the team.

Anyhow, I can't imagine what hypothetical meta you are talking about being less favorable than the timeframe I am talking about. We ran 2 boon prots without gift or infuse against bloodspike and IWAY (NR + Boon

) You don't do this expecting to win every match and hold halls. You give up build advantage to prove that you can outplay the teams in tombs. Nowadays infuse/heal monk is standard. People are a lot more used to split and the actual objectives in tombs are more favorable than before.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patccmoi

As for being easier to play with 6 than with 8, it's just true and please at least don't argue that it isn't. Any time we're 4-5, we'll fill and go HA, which is actually why i HAed regularly in the past weeks. If we're 6, we might fill for GvG true, but at 4-5 we won't, and if it was 8v8 HoH i'm really not sure that i would try to fill for HA either because in general i just dislike PuGs a lot (because i tend to run uncommon builds and PuGs people never grasp that 99% of the time and if we lose once they'll want to change the full build to what they know because they're convinced they know better, and the higher the rank the worse this part gets in general even though most of the people in our group is R9+).

I won't argue that 6 isn't a smaller number than 8. 8 pegs can't fit in 6 holes though too. Sometimes we ended GVG for the night with 5-7 people wanting to go do tombs. I totally feel your pain on PUGs not being able to play anything out of the norm. Eventually I just removed certain people because I knew they could only play FOTM stuff. I always had some that were willing to come tombs that I could trust to play at least a few classes really well no matter what build I gave them. So, it sucked when I couldn't get someone I trust but yea that is in no way close to a good reason to keep 6v6.

The other giant argument against 6v6 is the lack of variety. That is the main reason I will never play 6v6 but would be happy to pug if it is just 8v8.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patccmoi

So i AM in favor of 8v8. Fully. But dismissing the arguments of people that prefer 6v6 as if they didn't matter isn't actually helping imo. Because some of those arguments ARE valid.

It depends what you consider valid I guess. I can't think of one I would call valid like it justifies removing 8v8 in favor of 6v6. Not having enough to GVG and being too stuck up to take pugs is a real reason, but you temper that with all of the tombs players who don't GVG or have no trouble switching to a more pug friendly build because they just want to play. They are valid in that they exist and so are the ones for 8v8. I guess that is what the poll is for and I think it is safe to say 8v8 has won that. I don't care if Alex says that a bunch of polls on french sites are close..... Anyone who has spent significant time in tombs can tell you that the average district size has gone down since less people play.

Im In A Build · Mar 23, 2007, 03:31 PM // 15:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by coleslawdressin

This makes no sense to me at all. ATs aren't out yet and -3 (or a string of them) would matter a lot to me, especially if we were holding above 1200. I remember one time when we beat a top american guild, they were testing out a new monk player. I am pretty sure that made them stop for the night. You just need some general 8v8 combat to test how well a single player/build works with the team.

Anyone who has spent significant time in tombs can tell you that the average district size has gone down since less people play.

mabey theres less players because the games been out for 2 years plolololol

and for your whole -3 string you can make those up real quick by farming a few scrubs for +2 yayyyyyy

Death_From_Above · Mar 23, 2007, 04:25 PM // 16:25

Im a build that is an inaccurate observation i must say. After two years your player numbers will dwindle slowly. You not going to have like 3/4 of your game base quiting on the same day because the games old. Thus, this clearly tells us somethin has occured at the point of high decrease which as we all know is the introduction of 6v6.

coleslawdressin · Mar 23, 2007, 05:01 PM // 17:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Im In A Build

mabey theres less players because the games been out for 2 years plolololol

and for your whole -3 string you can make those up real quick by farming a few scrubs for +2 yayyyyyy

Actually a lot of people quit because of 6v6. I never saw it at 5 districts again after the changes. Even 4 districts I don't remember, but I stopped visiting as much. You shouldn't be forced to get a scrimmage just to play some casual 8v8 because those whole bunch of scrubs who can't infuse or beat iway want to take over tombs.

Selket · Mar 23, 2007, 05:15 PM // 17:15

When it was changed to 8v8 for the weekend there was like 5 districts the first day.

Then it was back to normal on Saturday.

Im In A Build · Mar 23, 2007, 05:25 PM // 17:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Selket

When it was changed to 8v8 for the weekend there was like 5 districts the first day.

Then it was back to normal on Saturday.

when 6v6 first came out there were 6 districts plolololololo

Death_From_Above · Mar 23, 2007, 05:45 PM // 17:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Selket

When it was changed to 8v8 for the weekend there was like 5 districts the first day.

Then it was back to normal on Saturday.

well wen it first came out i saw 12 my friend on friday. Then people realised anet still had ruind tombs with kill count and because kill count sucked so much they logged back off. Its give an take with anet, we give you 8v8 but we get to take ur fun. Thats why the numbers dwindled as time went past, cos kill count sucked.

coleslawdressin · Mar 23, 2007, 06:32 PM // 18:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Selket

When it was changed to 8v8 for the weekend there was like 5 districts the first day.

Then it was back to normal on Saturday.

Normal like how 6v6 never goes above 3 districts? I don't think you liking 6v6 and lying about this subject is coincidence. The only time I saw 6v6 with more was when they gave double fame. 8v8 was 6 or 7 dist the first day of testing when I saw it then 4 or 5 in the days after. I stopped playing as much after the weekend because of GVG, killcount sucking, and knowing it was only a week trial. I have spent hundreds of hours just in town to play tombs...after they changed how districts work this is what I saw:

8v8: usually 3-5, rarely 6 or 7 and never 4

6v6 usually 2-3, possibly 4 but I never saw it...... once even saw it with 1 ID

1 freaking ID... Yeah it was a good move.

There is no way you can argue that 6v6 has more players sorry :/

Arguing about this is silly anyhow. I am sure they have made their decision already. I hope what Nurse says is true......... It is a shame that Gaile can't come here and say anything. I guess they want to delay the inevitable firestorm when they announce the decision. I think failing to communicate is a decent reason to stop buying their products. I am definitely going to be a lot more hesitant in the future...

Death_From_Above · Mar 23, 2007, 07:28 PM // 19:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by coleslawdressin

I guess they want to delay the inevitable firestorm when they announce the decision. I think failing to communicate is a decent reason to stop buying their products. I am definitely going to be a lot more hesitant in the future...

Ye, i and many players will feel the same i believe. But i guess we will have to see how things go. But i must agree with you regarding the communication being very poor. We havent exactly heard much for a while, no reasurance ect. Almost makes it seem like Anet arent that bothered if the remaning players stay or if they go. Would u agree.

Black Destroyer · Mar 26, 2007, 07:11 PM // 19:11

keep the normal system and kick relic runs out of HoH, it's just a random vic...
The team who doesn't get ganked wins, most of the time you don't need any skill in running, just grab a relic hope the other teams face each other, and then you can win :/

Nadia Roark · Mar 26, 2007, 08:31 PM // 20:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by coleslawdressin

I think failing to communicate is a decent reason to stop buying their products. I am definitely going to be a lot more hesitant in the future...

Playing Devil's Advocate (once again) I am compelled to point out that most of the time, a game is released as-is and the developers/publishers don't even make a pretense out of reading their consumers' forum posts. A company like ANet is something of a rarity in the game development community, based on what I've seen in the past. A lot of them don't even have a "Community Relations" department in the first place.

That said, ANet's silence on the issue probably won't hurt their sales as much as most of us would probably love to think otherwise. HA isn't the largest sector of the GW community and never was; the fact that it's already dwindled this far probably fails to inspire any particular haste on their part. They don't seem to be caring that much that they may be losing out on a couple hundred sales from disgruntled HA'ers.

Alleji · Mar 26, 2007, 09:37 PM // 21:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nadia Roark

Playing Devil's Advocate (once again) I am compelled to point out that most of the time, a game is released as-is and the developers/publishers don't even make a pretense out of reading their consumers' forum posts. A company like ANet is something of a rarity in the game development community, based on what I've seen in the past. A lot of them don't even have a "Community Relations" department in the first place.

GW isn't "most games". GW aspired to be an alternative to the traditional MMO and those MMOs do listen to the feedback. They do this because they want their players to keep steadily paying $15 per month for as long as possible. For a PvP player, GW is no different, except being slightly cheaper: our pricing plan is $50/6 months.

So I don't see why you need to bring up "most games" when GW clearly doesn't fit the bill.

Death_From_Above · Mar 26, 2007, 10:18 PM // 22:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nadia Roark

Playing Devil's Advocate (once again) I am compelled to point out that most of the time, a game is released as-is and the developers/publishers don't even make a pretense out of reading their consumers' forum posts. A company like ANet is something of a rarity in the game development community, based on what I've seen in the past. A lot of them don't even have a "Community Relations" department in the first place.

I must say anet used to do this. Cough, now its just an excuse lol to make there company look good when infact there only worse than other companys because there lying to there customers. Ye we read your feedback HA community, i fail to see that action that has been taken given we have given so much feedback.

coleslawdressin · Mar 27, 2007, 01:55 AM // 01:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nadia Roark

Playing Devil's Advocate (once again) I am compelled to point out that most of the time, a game is released as-is and the developers/publishers don't even make a pretense out of reading their consumers' forum posts. A company like ANet is something of a rarity in the game development community, based on what I've seen in the past. A lot of them don't even have a "Community Relations" department in the first place.

Most? Consoles don't count. You make it sound like ANET is doing a good job of public relations on this issue and stands out from the crowd. There are companies out there that do better than saying they will have an answer at X time then not say anything for another 4 weeks. If they want to lose even more of the PVP market that they never fully captured, fine by me.

NoPantsRepublic · Mar 27, 2007, 04:28 AM // 04:28

On a lighter note... The title of this topic made me smile

At least we get a solution, as overdue as it may be.

Div · Mar 27, 2007, 04:42 AM // 04:42

2 weeks after the original post, still no 8v8...gg

Cass · Mar 27, 2007, 11:15 AM // 11:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nadia Roark

Playing Devil's Advocate (once again) I am compelled to point out that most of the time, a game is released as-is and the developers/publishers don't even make a pretense out of reading their consumers' forum posts. A company like ANet is something of a rarity in the game development community, based on what I've seen in the past. A lot of them don't even have a "Community Relations" department in the first place.

That said, ANet's silence on the issue probably won't hurt their sales as much as most of us would probably love to think otherwise. HA isn't the largest sector of the GW community and never was; the fact that it's already dwindled this far probably fails to inspire any particular haste on their part. They don't seem to be caring that much that they may be losing out on a couple hundred sales from disgruntled HA'ers.

I am compelled to point out that all you seem to be doing is to oppose anyone who complains about the current state of affairs. Arenanet has people on their payroll who keep an eye on the commuity. These paid employees are responsible for filtering out the emotional whines, exaggerations, semi-worldwise economics conjecture and what not, and act on the 'true' sentiments. They are capable of doing this, they are paid for it, and if they fail, they will lose their income in the end. Just like most other jobs out there.
You really do not have to feel obliged to assist them by constantly moderating what others say, unless it was to defend your own viewpoint. But you don't defend your own viewpoint. You say you dislike 8v8 (if i recall correctly), yet belittle others who agree with you, but do so in less mature ways. What's the point?