Curse

bigboi26 · Jan 05, 2007, 06:38 AM // 06:38

Is there ANY way, ANY, that you can tell us when a final decision is going to be made by (for the 8v8 situation of course)? I know a ton of the GW players are waiting on this decision. Also i heard a rumor a major update is coming mid january. Is this true? Can you give us ANY information that can be clear and not really really vague? Please ask whoever lets you give out info to give some out that actually makes sense. If you reply to this ill be very happy

Gaile Gray · Jan 05, 2007, 06:40 AM // 06:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomcruisejr

just give them what they want Gaile. remember, they used to fill the HA districts (as they claim).

Whether it goes to 8v8 or not, there is more than a matter of numbers to be addressed! We want to address things with substance and meaning, not simply make a single change due to public outcry. The change to 8v8 may or may not happen. I believe that the change to HA will offered improvements on many levels, and many of us will keep reading and learning what you have to say about the matter. (But please, guys, keep it productive and keep it readable. If a post is flaming, we might not see the nugget of worth within it.)

tomcruisejr · Jan 05, 2007, 06:43 AM // 06:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaile Gray

Whether it goes to 8v8 or not, there is more than a matter of numbers to be addressed! We want to address things with substance and meaning, not simply make a single change due to public outcry. The change to 8v8 may or may not happen. I believe that the change to HA will offered improvements on many levels, and many of us will keep reading and learning what you have to say about the matter. (But please, guys, keep it productive and keep it readable. If a post is flaming, we might not see the nugget of worth within it.)

sorry bout that added sarcasm to my post. i just hope you make the right decision and hopefully the coming changes will not only interest me, or them but everyone.

dansamy · Jan 05, 2007, 06:48 AM // 06:48

I think I've stated previously: the current HA maps were designed for 8 x X. (8 players per team multiplied by the number of teams the map was designed for.) One of two things needs to occur to rectify HA's declining state: revert to 8v8 with each map having the number of teams as originally designed and removing those maps found to be too long/tedious/boring or create entirely new maps specifically for a 6v6 game.

fenix · Jan 05, 2007, 06:49 AM // 06:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaile Gray

Whether it goes to 8v8 or not, there is more than a matter of numbers to be addressed! We want to address things with substance and meaning, not simply make a single change due to public outcry. The change to 8v8 may or may not happen. I believe that the change to HA will offered improvements on many levels, and many of us will keep reading and learning what you have to say about the matter. (But please, guys, keep it productive and keep it readable. If a post is flaming, we might not see the nugget of worth within it.)

The way to solve this? Do a complete 12-18 month rollback of HA (maps/8v8 etc), but with certain skills nerfed. That was when HA was most popular, so might as well make HA the way it used to be. I think people will continue to complain about HA until things are changed alot, because the amount of people that play HA has gone from thousands to much much less. I remember playing in peak Australian times about 10 months ago and there being 3 full American Districts and 5 full International Districts ALWAYS. Now it's AD1 having ~10 people Pugging, and ID1 being ~half-full.

Yes it would be bad to change HA back to 6v6 simply because it's what people want, but REALISTICALLY you would have to change almost EVERY map, because the Objectives are really unrealistic for a team of 6. You cannot carry the number of utility skills you need for every map with only 48 skill slots.

KaeTheFair · Jan 05, 2007, 07:17 AM // 07:17

I've tried to read through the suggestions that have been made, as I don't want to duplicate them.

I've recently come back to playing Guild Wars after a break of a few months, and have been trying the new Heroes' Ascent after practising in Random Arenas for a while. From this perspective, I have to say that the atmosphere in HA has changed completely. It's no longer the exciting, challenging, tough place that it used to be. Instead, it feels dead; there aren't even a tenth of the people that there used to be, and they are generally forming one of three builds. Now, I played through the heyday of IWAY, and I know that flavour of the month builds are nothing new, but they could always be beaten by a good balance build. Balance builds just don't work anymore, because you can't make a reasonably balanced team with six people. You have to prioritise offense or defense, and, well, defense seems to be the order of the day, which doesn't make for madly exciting play.

So, my proposals for A.net are as follows:

1) If you feel that 6v6 serves a purpose in providing a step up from TA and teaching new people how to play, then keep it. Just bring back 8v8 for the rest of us in a separate location. I don't see why this is an either/or situation, and why we can't have both.

2) If new people are complaining about rank requirements that mean they can't get get groups, why not make 8v8 an arena that is only accessible after you hit rank 3, which is generally when you can get ranked groups easily? That way, ranks 0-2 would be in a basic arena where they could learn skills, get groups among their levels, and would have an incentive to play.

That said, I'm not that sympathetic to those complaints. I started out at rank 0 like everyone else, and have moved up to midway to rank 4 through hard work, perseverance and a lot of losses. I've played with my guild and friends some of the time, but most of that was pure PUGging. I still can't get into rank 5-9 teams, but I'm not whining about it.

3) HA is getting stale, because it essentially contains the same maps in the same sequence that it did when I first bought Prophecies. Why not introduce some new maps and some new game modes? What about some arenas involving capturing the flag or holding multiple points or protecting a certain NPC, or even revolving around completing an objective as in Factions? If PvP is Guild Wars' "end-game" and major selling point, it needs to have more attention put into it. New maps for HA should be appearing on a regular basis, just as in RA or GvG. That's not to say the old ones should go; the more variety the better! That would keep the game fresh, and also prevent builds that are designed to exploit a particular set of maps from being too dominant.

4) HA needs some more incentives to get people playing it. How about being able to access certain PvP-only armours or weapons at certain rank levels? They could have unique, cool-looking skins, rather than special stats. I still think it's weird that's only available in PvE when GW's end-game is meant to be its PvP. Alternatively, how about being able to upgrade your guild halls with decorations and other fun stuff with points you earn from playing?

Gaile Gray · Jan 05, 2007, 07:50 AM // 07:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by KaeTheFair

(1) If you feel that 6v6 serves a purpose in providing a step up from TA and teaching new people how to play, then keep it. Just bring back 8v8 for the rest of us in a separate location. I don't see why this is an either/or situation, and why we can't have both.

Synergy and mass are important things. I could equate your suggestion to a fansite. When it is started, there are two or three forums, and everybody is talking to everybody about everything. With time, the fansite operators start splitting off forums, and before you know it, you have 50 forums and far less critical mass. You can end up, in a worse case scenario, with a split of a split of a split, and with three people in each forum talking to one another, and that's it. The energy dwindles, the chances of a lively or far-reaching dialogue are greatly reduced. And yet, just about every forum does end up making those many divisions.

Take HA. If you split out 8v8 and 6v6, pretty soon you have another component asking for 4v4 or 12v12. And pretty soon you've lost the critical mass that brings you a sufficient number of players to make getting into game quick and easy. Don't get me wrong -- there are thousands upon thousands of people playing, but with 24 timezones, many langauge-related districts, and with so many options on what form to play in Guild Wars, I think that splitting HA into two subsets is probably not likely to happen.

Note, "not likely" does not mean "will not happen." It's an interesting idea, and I am sure it will be considered.

Thom Bangalter · Jan 05, 2007, 07:55 AM // 07:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaile Gray

Whether it goes to 8v8 or not, there is more than a matter of numbers to be addressed!

does this mean removing the really poor win conditions for every single map? because that would make HA way better. If it's just changing numbers and adding gate locks, It'll still be low-quality, It'll just be plausible to blood spike a tiger again.

Alleji · Jan 05, 2007, 08:48 AM // 08:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bacon Goes Monk

(I'm guessing new maps and a different way to win halls)

A lever in HoH that drops a sandstorm on the altar.

(The holding team will have a lever that drops a ward melee on the altar)

Divinus Stella · Jan 05, 2007, 11:38 AM // 11:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaile Grey @ TGH

Not at all. If you read the quote, and my comment, you can see I mean that I am stating that we will not consider a singular change from 6v6 to 8v8 to amend all of the concerns with HA.

Changes to the numbers may or may not occur -- it's too soon to tell yet and discussion continues on this.

Its been discussed for months now and i think its fair enough to say 6v6 is not gonna get any better and that its just going downhill, the fact that gaile still gives us patronising visits to tell us everythings fine and something is being done is just irritating, lots people are still complaining about the change months after, any other update that people dont like has just been let slide after a week, but with the 6v6 change people are never gonna stop.

So basically no matter how many people want the change, they will keep making excuses, its not gonna happen, its not just the HA community that dont like 6v6, i know for a fact a lot of gvg players would actually play HA in their spare time if it were 8v8, but now instead of playing HA when not in gvg most people are playing WoW instead, just gotta hope this new gvg ladder isnt a mistake.

Cass · Jan 05, 2007, 11:47 AM // 11:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thom Bangalter

does this mean removing the really poor win conditions for every single map? because that would make HA way better. If it's just changing numbers and adding gate locks, It'll still be low-quality, It'll just be plausible to blood spike a tiger again.

"Changing numbers and adding gate locks" will at least bring back the option of playing proper 'deathmatch-style' PvP. It will bring back the ability to run balanced teams and counter gimmick builds of many flavors. It will increase the weight of 'skill' in HA, at the expense of build power.
In light of this, what does it matter whether someone else farms fame whilst exploiting new players with FotM builds? Farming is part of GW, in PvP as well as PvE. The first R12s were IWAY and ranger spike, as far as I know. Sure, it sucks, but you have the choice of not drooling over a title that was farmed and taking pride in your own, perhaps less numerically, but worth more in gameplay.

If we could just have the basic requirements met first (8vs8!!), then we can finetune skills and maps and winning mechanisms later. Sure, Anet can implement a multitude of things all at once and hope for the best, but chances are that one of the new 'cool' things in that bundle is going to be like allowing heroes in HA... no offense. That could ruin it all over again. So: Babysteps please.

tacitus · Jan 05, 2007, 11:47 AM // 11:47

I doubt Anet will change it back to 8v8 as it was since that would be an admission that they made a mistake so instead if they make changes it will be something else or a overhall of the whole HA system.

Which also means prob no change for ages if it all.

KaeTheFair · Jan 05, 2007, 11:58 AM // 11:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaile Gray

Take HA. If you split out 8v8 and 6v6, pretty soon you have another component asking for 4v4 or 12v12. And pretty soon you've lost the critical mass that brings you a sufficient number of players to make getting into game quick and easy. Don't get me wrong -- there are thousands upon thousands of people playing, but with 24 timezones, many langauge-related districts, and with so many options on what form to play in Guild Wars, I think that splitting HA into two subsets is probably not likely to happen.

I certainly can understand your point, but I would argue that such a split has already taken place along the lines of rank. If you're rank 3, you look for members between ranks 2-4; if you're rank 8, you look for ranks 5-8. So, it's not as if everyone is playing with everyone else at the moment.

I'm not convinced that you will get people asking for 4v4 and 12v12. 4v4 is pretty covered in RA and TA, and you generally would battle to make effective builds with that few people. At the same time, 12v12 is too big to coordinate very effectively.

That said, if you are going to do your planning on quantity, you definitely should go with 8v8. The majority of people in this thread and elsewhere seem to want it.

phasola · Jan 05, 2007, 12:24 PM // 12:24

Quote:

Someone on another forum pointed out that there was some concern about my earlier post where I agreed with another player (on that forum) who said that simply changing the numbers would not solve the issue. I agreed, and said that we would not simply change the numbers and consider everything solved.

Even if you know this why the hell did you change it to 6v6 ?
Even if HA will return to 8v8 don't expect miracles (6 IDs) because most people have quit the game.

Lorekeeper · Jan 05, 2007, 01:26 PM // 13:26

first of all... thanks for the comments gaile.

secondly, if you do have time to trudge through this thread i think you will find that the most well thought out and objective posters have also admitted to the fact that the issues about HA are far more than issues about party size.

but what im not so clear about... from what you have said... is whether you guys at anet think its possible to implement game mechanic changes to HA before the decision on party size is made.

i have a few observations to make that might help you through this problem.

these points might merely be a summary of previous posts.

1) current HA maps especially HOH... generally do not punish overly defensive builds. It is far safer... more efficient... to run a defensive build... and there are no maps that clearly make this type of strategy a disadvantage. The fact that HOH requires you to 'hold' an altar... dictates from the top... what sort of builds need to be run. Running anything short of a defensive build to defend a ghostly hero against 2 teams... is extremely difficult.

2) if you introduce/change new maps/old maps so that camping 1 area and waiting for the enemy team to engage is not a viable tactic, we will see less defensive builds. We need maps where winning objectives are not focused on one single area... we need maps where sitting around doing nothing will lose us the game. Basically we need maps that require us to adopt a variety of strategies, so that builds focusing on one strategy are difficult to run successfully.

for example relic runs...

put the relics in the centre of the map and keep ghostly heroes in the home bases... so when the game starts both teams need to run to the center to grab the relic... and run back to their base to cap. Give each relic a separate area to prevent teams camping both with spirits etc. Limit entrances to the relic areas but entrances must have adequate distance between them to make defending them require good mobility and coordination. As things stand at the moment on the first relic map... defensive teams can body block the 2 entrances to the relic, with both blocking teams within healing range of eachother and the ghostly hero. On the 2nd relic map this type of blocking is more difficult... since both entrances to the relic are not within easy healing range of eachother. Also the issue of lever control imposes a need for mobility and discourages camping.

but generally, having both relic and ghostly hero in the same area... benefits defensive builds because they can easily defend both. If you split these 2 objectives up... teams will be forced to think about how to defend both.

3) if you keep the holding objective of HOH... get rid of skips... you need to MAKE all teams fight on ALL maps. Having a diverse and balanced map rotation is pointless if skipping occurs regularly (which it does).

4) holding maps are fine as long as there are maps which require a totally different objective... and a relic run which demands mobility will achieve this as long as every team must win at least 1 relic run map.

the whole point of a map rotation is to force teams to run builds which are diverse enough to fulfil the variety of objectives in the rotation. If overly defensive builds are dominating HA atm, its an indication of a failed map rotation system.

force the need to bring utility.

ps

wow i didnt even mention 8vs8 or 6vs6

Franco Power · Jan 05, 2007, 01:37 PM // 13:37

Thanks for the information Gaile Gray.

Everyone just calm down and wait for the devs to come back from their holidays

, no point crying/flaming as it gets you no where in life after you're a certain age, and I'm sure Arena Net has an idea about what they have to do by now.

Bread Fan · Jan 05, 2007, 01:42 PM // 13:42

It's not rocket science. Why would anet remove 8v8 that WORKED for so long only to destroy HA? A lot of dedicated veterans feel "ripped" off including myself. So ANET wants to make it more noob friendly and wants to sell more copies of GW, so you say screw the people that have already purchased the first 3 chapters?

Wow, what a way to run a company.

Kratos Angel · Jan 05, 2007, 01:45 PM // 13:45

Lorekeeper, juste one thing remove skipping maps in HA is impossible because there are too many teams in Scarred Earth than there are before or after etc...
However why did Anet ask our pont of view, our ideas if they don't care about player ? Is it retard or something like ?
For balance, a good idea will be to relace actual scarred earth with a map with 4 teams I think but with effects that don't help defensive and spike teams but for the ideas of doing that I have no idea as long as I don't play spike at all, so other players would be bale to find things.
P.S : Anyway like another guy, if 8v8 doesnt come back I don't care the other modifications, I own't get back to HA

dgb · Jan 05, 2007, 02:14 PM // 14:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaile Gray

I guarantee that many people will think what we're doing is very cool.

You said that about Alliance Battles. And Hero Battles.

Can you make it a hatrick of over hyping something only for it to turn out to be utter cack or will you actually get it right for once?

Actually screw that, I forgot about "exciting new map changes". You've allready got the hatrick, can you drive for continuing excellence in mediocrity or will a decent idea come out for once?

Kabale · Jan 05, 2007, 02:51 PM // 14:51

Quote:

Can you make it a hatrick of over hyping something only for it to turn out to be utter cack or will you actually get it right for once?

Actually screw that, I forgot about "exciting new map changes". You've allready got the hatrick, can you drive for continuing excellence in mediocrity or will a decent idea come out for once?

I'm sure that if you were doing her job, you would be told to do so as well. Believe it or not, hyping something up brings in lots of revenue and is done purely to increase sales & keep people playing, with the added side-effect that some people may actually agree that the new content is something exciting.