Curse

Shortyafter · Jan 06, 2007, 12:39 AM // 00:39

Regardless of the other changes, I think it should return to 8v8 just because it's interesting how the HA metagame affects GvG. Builds like bloodspike, dual migraine, and even IWAY were first seen in tombs, then later moved on to GvG and were modified for the new objectives. It can go the other way too.

Franco Power · Jan 06, 2007, 01:13 AM // 01:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratchet is god

heres how its gonna fly...... 8v8 or u lose a customer its that easy... and simple 6v6 is trash and it is FotM everywhere its all it is and if u dont feel like being a noob and running it u get rolled (hence Zergway Spirit spam bullsh*nobody like 6v6 but the pve short bus tards that are not even r3 yet

I would keep the trash talk comments to yourself, since its not on topic and there is a chance Anet changed HA to 6vs6 because of new players.
Also it doesn't give the community a good image

.

Apok Omen · Jan 06, 2007, 01:29 AM // 01:29

Its a known fact that Anet changed HA because they liked the publicity from the double-fame 6v6 weekend, keeping in mind that we liked it because of the 6v6, not exactly the double fame gain.

defrule · Jan 06, 2007, 01:43 AM // 01:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apok Omen

Its a known fact that Anet changed HA because they liked the publicity from the double-fame 6v6 weekend, keeping in mind that we liked it because of the 6v6, not exactly the double fame gain.

i liked the doublefame not 6v6

phasola · Jan 06, 2007, 01:47 AM // 01:47

Quote:

Its a known fact that Anet changed HA because they liked the publicity from the double-fame 6v6 weekend, keeping in mind that we liked it because of the 6v6, not exactly the double fame gain.

Both sucked. Beating FoC spike with 1 monk that didn't even have infuse then going to win HoH with only 1 monk was a little fun, but if i wanted that kind of "competition" i'd go play RA.

keke_ · Jan 06, 2007, 03:06 AM // 03:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apok Omen

Its a known fact that Anet changed HA because they liked the publicity from the double-fame 6v6 weekend, keeping in mind that we liked it because of the 6v6, not exactly the double fame gain.

poeple liked it cause of double fame..

thenewpyro · Jan 06, 2007, 07:13 AM // 07:13

Since the Mods find it fun to close posts, hope they are happy with this, if not, then I don't know what else to do.

There are obviously a lot of people that would be very upset about a final decision over whether HA is going to be 6 man or 8 man. The truth is not everyone is going to be happy either way and as we have seen, most of the people seem to be rather ignorant children when they think they hear the final say. If both sides of the desire for 6v6 and 8v8 would grow up and be willing to compromise, maybe there is a way we can have both 6v6 and 8v8.

With the information from the voting polls, maybe there is a way to find out what percentage of the HA community wants to go back to 8v8 and what percent wants to stay at 6v6. With that information maybe we can set up an HA that is ever changing and doesn't stay with just 1 set limit. Maybe 75% of the HA community wants to go back to 8v8. Maybe you could then say that based on those results, the best way to please the majority of the HA community a majority of the time would be to have it set to 8v8 for the 5 weekdays and then 6v6 on the weekends. This might cut back the people that are diehard for 6v6 but it sounds like more want it to be 8v8 than 6v6. Maybe there is a different breakdown and it works out differently but with all the special weekends they did I can't see how this would be too hard to do. It just simply changes the party max from 6 to 8 back to 6 on a continuous cycle.

I personally don't care myself because I enjoy the challenge of an ever changing gaming invironment. I enjoy the challenges of making new builds for 6v6 as I did when it was 8v8. Everyone bitches now about SFWay when honestly, what is the difference between that and the old IWAY. They are both easy to beat even though they both apply extreme pressure, or at least they are supposed to.

To all the people whining about 6v6 and Searing Flames Way, what are you gonna complain about next? IWAY? or is it that maybe you are IWAYers and you can't adjust? Or maybe you don't realise that simply changing back to 8v8 wouldn't solve all the problems. I feel sorry for Anet having to put up with you people. I thank Anet for their incredible hard work and the endless job of pleasing a world full of children and their never ending complaints.

Anyway, I have approached my alliance with this idea and most seem to like it, even the ones that absolutely hate 6v6 seem to be willing to compromise. I have also talked to several others in the community and most think this would be a reasonable compromise. What do you guys think? I personally feel they should have never changed it to 6v6 in the first place. Then no one would know of the ability to swap back and forth and then this would be an issue but, since Anet decided to do so, maybe this little bit of extra work could be considered their punishment for opening pandora's box.

pigfister · Jan 06, 2007, 02:28 PM // 14:28

why are people complaining so much about being unable to get into groups, we all started with 0 fame, why don't you all go to random arena or team arena as r1 glad title is same as r3 hero, learn to pvp before ha please, then maybe there wouldn't be so much rank discrimination. As long as people suck at pvp there will be few groups for new players to enter as we will continue to only make groups with friends or guildies, but surly thats what ra is for! to start at the beginning!

Btw the 2x fame weekend is bad as it just created more rank discrimination that i have ever seen in tombs.

as i felt that some control over the groups that are all defence with limited dmg output just designed to kill the zaishen and time with gwshack to get skip to halls or just to make people rage quit as no damage is possible should be stopped somehow. 6v6 is definatly harder to counter all the builds but i believe it is more fun. as we have gvg for 8v8 ra for introduction and ta for 4v4 so ha sits right in the middle as it should.

Gaile Gray · Jan 07, 2007, 02:42 AM // 02:42

I'll try to respond, but so help me, this hasn't been a good day, it's Saturday, and I have a new rodent to play with, so I expect you to use some sense and not launch a multi-spearhead attack. Clear?

1. The designers don't want to shake up everything at once. You're asking "Why not make it 8v8 and try those changes," but I think that in most minds, that is based on the belief that "the game will become 8v8 eventually, and so why not get it over with and skip the first step?" But as far as I know, there isn't a firm decision on party size. There is a definite realization that this mechanic or that part of the format is not working, and so it's logical to work on those first. Party size can come later; that is what I'm told. Not being a designer -- and I'm pretty sure we don't have any designers posting in this thread

-- I'm going to trust that those who do this for a living have a plan, and have a sequence for implementation of that plan. I've heard of a large number of changes, to many aspects of HA, and I do think they will be well received, but that leads me to...

2. I'm very sorry if things I have said in the past have occasionally been taken as "hype" or "PR talk." I will say this, once again, and hope that someone, somewhere, gets it. If I say it enough, maybe enough people will get it and I can stop saying this: I am not PR. I am CR. There is a very significant difference in the roles that PR and CR fulfill, and I'd appreciate it if you'd look upon me as the player that I am (and don't demean the discusssion by asking me to flash /age or /rank ) and as the conduit for communication that I offer, in both directions.

So if I said, "I think you'll like AB or HB, or whatever," I did think that. And for some, my impressions applied. If it did not apply to you personally -- if you abhor the concept of HB, or can't abide AB -- I am sorry. I'm enthusiastic about the work of the designers, and as they tell me what they're doing, in many cases I visualize a very positive reaction. I'm not sent out here to hype things, or spin stuff, or attempt to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, or try to cajole you into liking something. In fact, to give some perspective, the post I made yesterday, the Dev Update, was nobody's idea but my own. Nobody steering, nobody asking me to spin it. I said, "Let me get the word out, it is going to please the players to know they can actively take part in testing the possible changes to HA," and everyone thought my posting about it was a good idea, and here I am.

Lastly, when you say, "Tell us what you have in mind," "Give us a list of what you have planned," I have to say, first, that's a lot to ask and no company does that on a regular basis, but then secondly (and ironically) to pose the question, "Yet isn't that exactly what we're doing with this new test?" How does the request differ from our fulfillment of that request? It's actually better! Instead of just talking about it, we're showing you, letting you poke at it and test it before it's permanent, and we'll appraise and base future changes, in part, on what you have to say about your experience actually playing it. Instead of saying, "Assess this theoretical change to HA" we're saying, "Here are some things we might do, what do you think?" I think that's entirely positive.
Don't you?

Randomway Ftw · Jan 07, 2007, 03:17 AM // 03:17

Gaile, many of us believe that the major problems (such as 6v6) should be addressed first. Many of the mechanics changed discussed are based on the thoughts of non-HAers who prefer GvG. The so called holding build problem can be traced back to the "build-wars" situation that has resulted from 6v6. THe amount of shut down, and utility common in 8v8 means that some part of a build would usually get screwed breaking defensive builds, the build is unable to eliminate or suppress the problem leading to it to collapse. I don't care if FOTMs can't kill a certain build, there's a reason for that and it should stay that way.

What I am worried about is this weekend goes off, HA regulars do not like some of the changes, while GvG and PVE players do, the changes become permanent, and HA regulars get screwed again.

.defekt · Jan 07, 2007, 03:25 AM // 03:25

I think the problem is that ANet changed from 8v8 to 6v6 without thinking about what it could affect, and without changing anything. The maps and the system was based on 8v8. And I personally didn't notice a major change when they introduced 6v6.

Oh wait, they added that lever.

Gaile Gray · Jan 07, 2007, 03:38 AM // 03:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Randomway Ftw

Gaile, many of us believe that the major problems (such as 6v6) should be addressed first. Many of the mechanics changed discussed are based on the thoughts of non-HAers who prefer GvG. The so called holding build problem can be traced back to the "build-wars" situation that has resulted from 6v6. THe amount of shut down, and utility common in 8v8 means that some part of a build would usually get screwed breaking defensive builds, the build is unable to eliminate or suppress the problem leading to it to collapse. I don't care if FOTMs can't kill a certain build, there's a reason for that and it should stay that way.

What I am worried about is this weekend goes off, HA regulars do not like some of the changes, while GvG and PVE players do, the changes become permanent, and HA regulars get screwed again.

I do understand, yes. I can hear you guys loud and clear: You feel the party size is the key element, and you believe that changes should not be made, and cannot accurately be tested, unless the numbers are changed first and foremost.

I did ask about this, and the answer I got from the designers was yes, we can test in this order and have adequate and accurate information on which to base final decisions. I do appreciate that you disagree, but I have to place my bets with the designers. I also have to say that no amount of argument on your part, or on my part on behalf of your position, would effect a change on the plans, because end of the day, the decision is in the hands of those ultimately responsible for the final choices (as it should be).

I hope this doesn't sound dismissive, for it's not intended to be, but I truly do trust the team. Even if things are not perfect, and even if they're as not-even-close-to-perfect as some of you feel, I respect the designers' knowledge, their commitment, and their expertise and I believe they should move forward on the path that they have set.

fenix · Jan 07, 2007, 03:44 AM // 03:44

The way I see it, the Devs can do what they want to change HA in a way that will bring players to play it. It's their game, and they can do what they see fit. Worse comes to worse, and Anet end up with a game that has no PvP players at all, and is 100% PvE content. No big deal, because PvE is where the money is at, so we can all go play Fury instead

Gimme Money Plzkthx · Jan 07, 2007, 03:48 AM // 03:48

Quote:

I did ask about this, and the answer I got from the designers was yes, we can test in this order and have adequate and accurate information on which to base final decisions. I do appreciate that you disagree, but I have to place my bets with the designers. I also have to say that no amount of argument on your part, or on my part on behalf of your position, would effect a change on the plans, because end of the day, the decision is in the hands of those ultimately responsible for the final choices (as it should be).

Are those the same designers that changed it to 6v6, resulting in a loss of over half the HA playerbase? Also, the decision is indeed in your hands, as is whether or not you want more profits from more players on that next expansion.

Messner · Jan 07, 2007, 06:57 AM // 06:57

So continuing in the spirit of the last test of possible changes to HA, there will no doubt be another double fame weekend with which ArenaNet can properly yield confounding results, no?

Gaile Gray · Jan 07, 2007, 09:09 AM // 09:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Messner

So continuing in the spirit of the last test of possible changes to HA, there will no doubt be another double fame weekend with which ArenaNet can properly yield confounding results, no?

No.

Well, you asked, so I thought you were seriously asking!

tacitus · Jan 07, 2007, 02:30 PM // 14:30

I think one of main problems at the minute is a difference on what we want to achieve. On the other thread said.

Quote:

HA needs to change. And in order for it to change in the best ways possible, everyone should focus on communicating better, more clearly, and as respectfully as possible. In the end, each of us wants the same thing: An improvement to a valuable element of Guild Wars. Let's work together to achieve that end.

Change coming is a good thing no doubt it is desperately needed.

However what is the final aim for HA when? what state will people look at and say its fixed/good as its going to be etc.

A lot of posters on the forum want the old 8v8 style back where they can make up a variety of builds. Yes there was more variety of builds back then if people choose to put stuff together.

However even if this new 6v6 system works and is successful it will not be what these people want. Instead we would have an area that is good to go to when you don't have enough for GvG, or even perphabs a stepping stone for people moving up the pvp ladder rather than being an alternative high end arena.

Until people agree on a final outcome to HA that "same thing" the disagreements will continue in the current fashion.

Alazare · Jan 07, 2007, 02:47 PM // 14:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by tacitus

I think one of main problems at the minute is a difference on what we want to achieve. On the other thread said.

Change coming is a good thing no doubt it is desperately needed.

However what is the final aim for HA when? what state will people look at and say its fixed/good as its going to be etc.

A lot of posters on the forum want the old 8v8 style back where they can make up a variety of builds. Yes there was more variety of builds back then if people choose to put stuff together.

However even if this new 6v6 system works and is successful it will not be what these people want. Instead we would have an area that is good to go to when you don't have enough for GvG, or even perphabs a stepping stone for people moving up the pvp ladder rather than being an alternative high end arena.

Until people agree on a final outcome to HA that "same thing" the disagreements will continue in there current fashion.

/sign

The thing this community wants is 8v8. The map changes were long overdue anyway

sjvn · Jan 07, 2007, 05:36 PM // 17:36

8v8 was not 'better' because of a variety of builds. Remember when the only way you could get into a group if you weren't high ranked was to play IWAY? I do. 6x6 actually makes many more build types possible. Go look. But, and this is the real reason, with 6x6 and other rule changes, there are no easy win builds for new players now. With no easy way to get into Halls, they stopped playing. Think of them as the plankton of the HoH ecosystem. ;-) New players found it much harder to get into groups, so they stopped coming. Older players, the sharks, who were used to feasting on newer players now found themselves in a much more competitive envirnonment and left because Halls were 'broken.'

Do the halls have problems? Yes. But, to boil it down to 6x6 is the real problem, misses the point. For Halls to florish, it needs to be made more new player friendly. Perhaps, two tiers of Halls were do the trick. One for R3 and below, where they can graduate to the major halls? Experienced players could also play in the 'junior' hall, but couldn't get fame from it after say R5.

Totten

pigfister · Jan 07, 2007, 06:13 PM // 18:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by sjvn

Do the halls have problems? Yes. But, to boil it down to 6x6 is the real problem, misses the point. For Halls to florish, it needs to be made more new player friendly. Perhaps, two tiers of Halls were do the trick. One for R3 and below, where they can graduate to the major halls? Experienced players could also play in the 'junior' hall, but couldn't get fame from it after say R5.

Totten

there is a r3 and below area, its called random arena and team arena, a r1 gladiator title is considered r3 hero in halls, a r3 glad means you can play pvp and will be enlisted by more groups.

edited by dansamy: keep your questions/comments on moderating to PM's and/or reports