Curse

Nadia Roark · Jan 07, 2007, 06:57 AM // 06:57

Wow. Such tolerance.

Such understanding.

Honestly, I'm moved by the attempts made by everyone so far to approach this in rational manner.

If you think I'm against moving tombs back to 8v8, or that I think the same fotms will work now with two new classes and tons more skills, then I'm sorry if I've misled you. I was using them as examples. Things need to change either way but I think 6v6 or 8v8 tombs could be made to work and I believe I'm allowed to express the opinion that 6v6 tombs can work and that it's a possibility worth investigating.

Also, I assumed the gameplay differences between GvG and HA were about as profound as the gameplay differences between TA/RA and HA and didn't need mentioning. I was trying to explain that each "sphere" of pvp-play had a progressively larger party and differing victory conditions. I'm aware of the wild and far reaching tactical and strategic differences between the different modes of PvP. Thank you for reminding me.

infymys · Jan 07, 2007, 07:12 AM // 07:12

For the sake of my post I will have PvE, PvP and Heroes' Ascent as different entities.
In the near two years of this franchise's life, there have been many additions to game content.....

PvE: Sorrow's Furnace, multiple bonus drop weekends, the Mad King, Wintersday, storage upgrades, new weapon skins, "smarter" AI, an insane amount of titles, and updates upon updates to fix the dye problems, item stacking, etc.

PvP: New maps for Random and Team Arenas as well as for GvG. Double faction weekends for all Arenas including AB, FA, and JQ. Double champ point weekends. Hero Battles (I digress at calling this actual PvP). Scrimmage capabalities and of course, Gladiator, Champion, and *ugh* Commander titles.

Heroes' Ascent: What did it gain? Oh wait, the times were reduced in relic runs and altar maps. The loss of two players in party numbers. And the complete removal of a perfectly fine map.
Again, what did it gain? Oh yeah, double fame weekend but then we know what happened after that (6v6) which seems to have resulted in the loss of a good majority of the HA playerbase. We also got a mini game I'd like to call dice rolling since that's what happens half the time. And then there's the extra opposing party for those joyous Broken Tower gankfests. And I definitely can't forget about that lever, that wonderous lever.
I've also been holding on to my awesome max damage Air Wand of Enchanting (17%) that I got from the chest for prosperity's sake.
Let's just say that I'm very pessimistic about these proposed new and "exciting" changes coming to Heroes' Ascent. As well as the claim that a good lot of the HA community will come to like these changes as the previous changes have been proven to the contrary.

BrotherKurupt · Jan 07, 2007, 09:09 AM // 09:09

While I was writing a post in apology to Gaile, the thread was locked. Such is the irony of the HA community! Here is my post, anyhow...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaile Gray

How about you cut me some slack? Even better, how about you give some credit for effort, persistance, dedication, communication and obvious caring?

I actually do realize that ArenaNet takes a very proactive approach with its community. I know for a FACT that you put in a lot of your personal time, efforts, patience, nerves and more to serve us as players of Guild Wars. I know you (and the frog persona) make numerous and informative appearances in various districts and this is always met with jubilation. So, in all seriousness, I will personally apologise for my biting remarks. They are not there to suggest there is a vast detachment between you and the player base, nor are they there to hold you accountable for any such divide (for it does not exist). I have personally observed numerous and paramount changes made to make the experience of the player more rewarding and immersive. This in turn gives the players a lot of power of the game's content, which is both an unusually brilliant yet potentially risky concept.

I have a radical thought--I believe that you give the virtual Heroes' Ascent community TOO MUCH OF THIS POWER! The level of tension in this competitive arena is quite high--I have been in very few matches that have not involved at least some racist remark, personal attack or undeniably creative criticism of someone's build via new and powerful 21st century insults. This occurs in local chat of a match before it begins or in the few precious seconds that remain before the losing team is relegated to the district in which it was born. While these kind of remarks are often horrid and uncalled for, they are a sign of passion. They are a sign that when we as humans play Heroes' Ascent, we want the whole package--the imposing upper hand, the complete victory, the total annihilation.

I believe that ArenaNet has taken the award-winning PvE-style community approach and valiantly extrapolated it into HA which, in my opinion, may not be the best way to handle the energized and restless Tombs fans. See, when we had the problem of stacking spirit spam in the old Tombs (this must have frustrated you too, Ms. Gaile) ArenaNet dismantled (nerfed) this overpowered technique. In less than a day, Tombs changed. No longer were guilds holding in 6-hour shifts.

My point is this--I think the way to gain the respect you deserve from the HA community is not by trying to appeal to the humanity within, but rather to continually provide it with the same competitive appeal. Do this by continuing to balance the skills, fix the glitches, remove map bugs etc. I think I speak for the HA community when I say that at any given moment, they would prefer to be in a team in Tombs winning through strategy than posting the forums. In fact, I believe the less threads there are about the "state of Tombs" the healthier HA is. Don't listen to the whiners who complain that they can't beat some build or the other! This is competitive PvP! These are the people who have abused the power ArenaNet has given them and started a series of changes that have in turn "dumbed down" the level of competition. Addition of Heroes is a good example of this type of change--I'm very thankful this has been resolved.

It isn't supposed to be shockingly easy for a new player to start playing in HA--if it was, they would eventually become disappointed. Tombs is sometimes a harsh, unforgiving environment and more often than not, it is an adrenaline rush for the whole team (and especially for the person responsible for putting up Song of Concentration)! I came to Tombs for the competition but I stayed for the emotion and the zeal--don't take this away! Think of the HA community as a sand wurm--show it that you're the master of its domain. You were there before it was, you started this game and made it a possibility. I know this goes in direct defiance of your entirely valid and commendable approach to human morality, but this is the reality of HA! Or perhaps we are the gladiators, and people go to observer mode to watch the blood sports...they want to see their favorite pvp personalities getting pwned, rolled, zoned, denied, blocked, spammed, spiked, pressured into an infinite state of QQ! I believe 8v8 was better for this...

Note: I am completely unaware of the potential monetary benefit for ArenaNet or NC Soft in changing HA to 6v6, adding heroes, etc. I can only infer that less players in HA may not completely mean that many more players in GvG/TA/RA. In this aspect, my points are nullified. I only speak about what is good for me as a player, and not about what is good for your corporation.

Morgoth the dark · Jan 07, 2007, 09:12 AM // 09:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yunas Ele

Wait wait, let me get this straight. You don't like fighting same builds over and over but you like 6v6? Oh lets see, sandstorm/dervishway, 2 mending w/mos, 2 firestorm eles, 2 heroes, jagged bonesway, then another sandstorm/dervishway, then jaggedbonesway, then a zergway (or walrusway as I like to call it), then rinse and repeat. OMG THATS SO MUCH BETTER THAN B4!11111

I played old tombs (pre-IWAY) too. There were fotms back then too. Honestly the fact that you say there was pure balance makes me question if you really did play tombs back then.... There always have, and always will be fotms in HA. There are in GvG too. Perhaps move onto another game if they make the game so boring for you....

it's not so much i like 6v6, it's more about keeping 6v6 and adding new maps / playstyles. anyone who wants to play 8v8 should consider some builds to be overpowered (imagine invoke lightning with 8 ppl).
and yes they were fotms in old tombs but none was so exposed as these those days. (there were a lot of chokers etc.).
but fotms in this form... i really hope they will add some new features so the other builds can pop out.
about gvg.... yea there are fotms (eurospike atm if you know what i'm talking about) but they are not there becuase they are easy to play, they are there becuase players think it will work good becuase they saw top 10 guild playing it. It's not about build, it's about skill. (in gvg.)
in HA things are kinda different. PuG teams will play those builds who are easy to make and easy to play.on the other hand guildteams (most of it)will play something innovative and new, maybe not efficient every time, but at least new. But still some guildteams just pick some old fotm builds and play it, evolve it and in day or two (if they are good with it) some random guys (pugs) will make the same team and so on and on and on. (for example, Power of my rangers was playing rspike, holding hoh for a verylong time, and soone some other ranadom guys were trying to do the same thing. none of them was efficient as him but still.)

and if you didnt saw difference in old tombs and nowdays (about fotms) maybe you weren't playing it, not me.

Bread Fan · Jan 07, 2007, 09:41 AM // 09:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nadia Roark

I'm aware of the wild and far reaching tactical and strategic differences between the different modes of PvP. Thank you for reminding me.

I honestly don't think you do.

Gaile Gray · Jan 07, 2007, 10:05 AM // 10:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrotherKurupt

I believe that ArenaNet has taken the award-winning PvE-style community approach and valiantly extrapolated it into HA which, in my opinion, may not be the best way to handle the energized and restless Tombs fans. See, when we had the problem of stacking spirit spam in the old Tombs (this must have frustrated you too, Ms. Gaile) ArenaNet dismantled (nerfed) this overpowered technique. In less than a day, Tombs changed. No longer were guilds holding in 6-hour shifts.

So the question is, is that a good thing, or a bad thing? Is having a proponderant number of teams using a single overpowered strategy healthy? Fun? Is having teams playing IWAY (in the early days) fun for any team who doesn't want to play IWAY, or doesn't want to be stuck playing Counter-IWAY every game because inevitably, their opponent will be going up-up-and-IWAY?

Quote:

My point is this--I think the way to gain the respect you deserve from the HA community is not by trying to appeal to the humanity within, but rather to continually provide it with the same competitive appeal. Do this by continuing to balance the skills, fix the glitches, remove map bugs etc. I think I speak for the HA community when I say that at any given moment, they would prefer to be in a team in Tombs winning through strategy than posting the forums. In fact, I believe the less threads there are about the "state of Tombs" the healthier HA is.

I totally agree with you there. I'd rather see an empty forum and a crowded game than a crowded forum and a game that isn't as active as it should be. But when you suggest we not "listen to the whiners who complain that they can't beat some build or the other," what about those builds that are the result of imbalance? What's you position on tweaks made to avoid FotM? Leave it and allow the counters to be discovered and refined? Or tweak the skills that, in combination, move something from "powerful" to "overpowered?" Take the IWAY reference above, or your own Spirit Spamming, or the MM before tweaking... Leave it be? Or adjust individual skills to reduce the commonality of the build?

Or... are you saying "Pick the course and stick with it?" I'm a little hazy on some of what you're suggesting. Is it rigidity of position, so that "This is Tom... sorry... This is HA, deal with it?" Are you in favour of the testing weekend or do you feel that empowers the players to feel too invested in the decisions based, in part, upon the testing and their feedback?

Quote:

It isn't supposed to be shockingly easy for a new player to start playing in HA--if it was, they would eventually become disappointed. Tombs is sometimes a harsh, unforgiving environment and more often than not, it is an adrenaline rush for the whole team (and especially for the person responsible for putting up Song of Concentration)! I came to Tombs for the competition but I stayed for the emotion and the zeal--don't take this away!

Some degree of longevity comes from complexity, I agree. So, on another topic, you'd not act in response to those who demand that the designers make DoA easier? I know, wrong forum, wrong gameplay mode, but I'm wondering if in your opinion the same suggestion would apply. For you seem to be suggesting that difficulty is a good thing, and challenge should be met head on, not after it's been buffed to remove the hard edges. If that is your point, then I even agree with it quite a bit. But I got an email today from a player who's stuck on a mission (Turai's) and he's likely going to leave the game because he's so very frustrated. He's angry with us and vows to never purchase another game of ours because that particular mission is so difficult. Having found that mission a challege myself, but having played it unconventionally and eventually succeeding, I'm aware of the rush that success brings, too. (I stayed up until dawn to beat Diablo the first time. 1998. It was a Tuesday.

) Anyway, I'm sensitive to the nature of difficulty and wonder where the line is between challenging someone to the max and breaking the will of the player by excessive challenge.

And Infymys, I'll try to stop saying "exciting changes" even if it kills me. I've heard the details, I do find the thought of them exciting, and I honestly believe that players will like many of them (although I know you guys well enough to know not everybody will love everything). It's sort of difficult to speak flatly--"changes coming"--without tossing in something beyond the boring recitation of facts. But if the currency of enthusiasm has been misspent, I'll see if I can try not to engage in opinion quite as much.

Alazare · Jan 07, 2007, 11:24 AM // 11:24

I dont understand why dont you want to bring 8v8 back if the community is simply SCREAMING for it. If you wish to appeal to this community then simply give us what we want, and what we want is written in almost every single post on this forum. 8v8. The whole community is begging you to fix a mistake.

EDIT: I'm sorry. This theme is discussed on another thread already

BrotherKurupt · Jan 07, 2007, 02:26 PM // 14:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaile Gray

Or... are you saying "Pick the course and stick with it?" I'm a little hazy on some of what you're suggesting. Is it rigidity of position, so that "This is Tom... sorry... This is HA, deal with it?" Are you in favour of the testing weekend or do you feel that empowers the players to feel too invested in the decisions based, in part, upon the testing and their feedback?

I'm not trying to suggest too much at once! However, I am in support of a more rigid control on PvP. I started playing Tombs in the heydays of spirit spam--one of my first matches involved me standing clueless in the Underworld, my entire team dead and also oblivious to the fact that I was being used by the opposing team to skip to the Hall with timer in mind. In fact, it was quite rare for me to see a map past Broken Tower but I didn't feel like it was right to complain. There were spirits blocking everything--so I put a fire ele into our build. Etc etc. The nerf to spirits was by and large a welcome change, but I was unaware of the larger scheme of things at the time--I thought it was perfectly normal for a team to hold 40-50 times in a row and my inability to kill spirits was just a reflection of my incompetence. So we plowed on. In any case, the removal of stacking spirits was welcomed by what seemed like every player--even the hardcore oath shotters probably wanted something new.

I believe ArenaNet knows when something is extremely imbalanced--I will define an imbalanced skill/item as one which begins to negate the whole point of the map sequence. For example, it was possible to block the entire altar on Broken Tower with spirits so it was no longer much of an altar match--not to mention every time I tried to get the relic in Unholy Temples it felt like a simulation of mining through those spirits.

If something is simply overpowered though--I believe players should learn to deal with it. This includes IWAY. In the IWAY days...some of the builds we designed that didn't even include anti-melee pressure (there may have been indirect anti-melee defense i.e. ward vs foes) were very effective when players played smart against it. However, IWAY was getting out of hand and embarassingly rampant. So justified in their actions, ArenaNet reduced its power to add variety. Unlike spirit spamming , IWAY still had to at least complete the mission objectives--kill a team or run a relic, or usually both. Therefore, I would not mind if IWAY, soul reaping from spirits or ether prodigy were ever nerfed

There, I said it. Nerf the extremely disruptive combos to maintain general order, but let us fight it out.

For example, I see many now that think Searing Flames, Blinding Surge, Spiritual Pain, even Rampage as One should/will be nerfed. I have seen them all in action...and I frankly don't see how they are overly disruptive.

Hah, look I understand its very hard to balance these things! So it's fully acceptable to have testing phases. I'm all in favour of experimental weekends and experimental events, but perhaps 2 days of testing was not enough to warrant a diminished party size. I have a thirst for new material, new events, new things--but players have too much authority to dictate change as it is.

Right NOW, there is some build evolution occuring. To use a phrase employed on the TeamQuitter forums, the "pedestrian level" of Tombs is something most dread. The notion of facing the exact same IWAY, bspike, rspike or jagged bones/soul barbs builds. I see more people using dazing rangers vs. necro healers, grenth dervs vs. the signet of mystic wrath bond/spike combo, humility mesmers shutting down gimmick builds. This is all very exciting. I just believe it would have been more exciting even in 8v8 as a team has so many things to do before the Hall. I guess the challenge now is to design builds while trying to synergize the Altar capping / relic running specific skills with the rest of the skills to make a killer combo. As long as there is noticeable build evolution, I am happy. I saw some [ftl] members running around with r12 (finally Akari?) so perhaps they will stop the jagged soon? It's saddening that many players resort to simply copying builds from observer mode based on the probability of that build winning the Hall.

Short version: players have too much input.

As for toning down DoA, this is a delicate issue. I don't believe it should be made easier. If I want to play an easy expansion area, I'll go play Fissure of Woe (a playground in comparison to DoA, doable with any classes and as little as 4 people within a comfortable time frame) or Sorrow's Furnace. People have beat Mallyx--this is a clear indication that this area is not impossible. If a person is unable to beat Turai's procession--he/she does not really want to beat it. Does that make sense? They don't REALLY want to beat it--they're just upset that there is no Easy-Normal-Hard slider in this game.

Something new: Perhaps if a party has at least 3 players from different regions (i.e. Korea+Japan+Europe) they win favor for international districsts? I'd love to do fissure with Koreans--they'd probably finish in 15 mins.

Alleji · Jan 07, 2007, 04:05 PM // 16:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nadia Roark

Also, I assumed the gameplay differences between GvG and HA were about as profound as the gameplay differences between TA/RA and HA and didn't need mentioning. I was trying to explain that each "sphere" of pvp-play had a progressively larger party and differing victory conditions. I'm aware of the wild and far reaching tactical and strategic differences between the different modes of PvP. Thank you for reminding me.

If you know the difference between GvG and HA, why did you tell us to go play GvG if we liked 8v8 HA?

Why don't you go play PvE from Yak's Bend to Droks? It has a 6-man party size. Then all 6v6ers like you would be happy and we could have our tombs back. Yes, I know that's retarded. I just wanted to show you how your post looked.

Gimme Money Plzkthx · Jan 07, 2007, 04:25 PM // 16:25

Quote:

Anyway, I'm sensitive to the nature of difficulty and wonder where the line is between challenging someone to the max and breaking the will of the player by excessive challenge.

This is something that has been driven into the ground. If one tries hard enough, it is not that hard to get into heroe's ascent. In fact, many of the only players playing HA atm are the lower ranked ones, thus the lack of competition. However, 8v8 was undoubtedly more user friendly as you had easier builds like iway and bloodspike to get into the game and get r3. Regardless of party number differences and such though, it's seriously not that hard to get into HA, people just have to try. Having to try=QQ

lishi · Jan 07, 2007, 05:27 PM // 17:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nadia Roark

Wow. Such tolerance.

Such understanding.

Honestly, I'm moved by the attempts made by everyone so far to approach this in rational manner.

If you think I'm against moving tombs back to 8v8, or that I think the same fotms will work now with two new classes and tons more skills, then I'm sorry if I've misled you. I was using them as examples. Things need to change either way but I think 6v6 or 8v8 tombs could be made to work and I believe I'm allowed to express the opinion that 6v6 tombs can work and that it's a possibility worth investigating.

Also, I assumed the gameplay differences between GvG and HA were about as profound as the gameplay differences between TA/RA and HA and didn't need mentioning. I was trying to explain that each "sphere" of pvp-play had a progressively larger party and differing victory conditions. I'm aware of the wild and far reaching tactical and strategic differences between the different modes of PvP. Thank you for reminding me.

no the difference is not only that

to play high level gvg you need a good guild and and mostly important you need to devote a consistent part of your time in a precise window (like GVG at 8.00 gmt dont be late) to play.

In HA is much easier since you can log in check who are ready to play then play.

gasmaskman · Jan 07, 2007, 05:40 PM // 17:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morgoth the dark

imagine invoke lightning with 8 ppl

Imagine this: A SKILL BALANCE BALANCING INVOKE LIGHTNING!!! IMPOSSIBLE ISN'T IT!!!!!!! OMG!!!!

People need to stop saying it'll be IMBA w/ [insert currently overpowered nightfall skill] because THERE. IS. A. SKILL. BALANCE. COMING.

phasola · Jan 07, 2007, 05:47 PM // 17:47

Quote:

So the question is, is that a good thing, or a bad thing? Is having a proponderant number of teams using a single overpowered strategy healthy? Fun? Is having teams playing IWAY (in the early days) fun for any team who doesn't want to play IWAY, or doesn't want to be stuck playing Counter-IWAY every game because inevitably, their opponent will be going up-up-and-IWAY?

I can clearly say that you never played HA. People play IWAY, let them play it. Why didn't you nerf it a year ago when it first showed it's ugly head ? A single reduction to the IWAY skill would have killed, but no.
And what the hell do you mean counter-IWAY build ? Who ran anti IWAY ? You didn't need counters to beat IWAY, you just needed decent people that know what they are doing.

Nadia Roark · Jan 07, 2007, 06:19 PM // 18:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alleji

If you know the difference between GvG and HA, why did you tell us to go play GvG if we liked 8v8 HA?

Because it seems like 8-man has a lot of fans and GvG is the only current way to play it? If you don't like the pace or strategy of GvG then tough beans I guess: no 8-man for you unless ANet brings it back.

My point is that you people aren't mad you can't play 8v8 anymore, you're mad that you can't earn flashy emotes using the same builds that have worked until very recently. If you (personally) could still bloodspike in tombs we would not be having this argument. If you (personally) could rangerspike in GvG we wouldn't be having this argument either. But we are. Why? Because you can't find a way to enjoy 6-man and you're not happy about it. That's fine; I mean if you don't like it you're more than welcome to say something about it--that's sort of what this thread is for and I'm sure Gaile is looking for some feedback. That does not give you or anyone else the license to hurl your weak-ass ad hominems at me in the hopes that they'll defeat my argument.

The complaints I've been seeing about 8-man tombs are (for the most part) far from comprehensive. For example, the main complaint seems to hinge around the fact that there "aren't enough builds" (convienently ignoring the fact that there are now 5+ dominant fotms instead of 2); but if that's the real complaint GvG still affords 8-man build possibilities. The diversity is there, just not in the PvP mode you want to play right now.

But wait! That's probably not the real reason we want 8 man tombs. We want 8-man tombs because it's what we're used to--it's a convention of PvP. We want it back because the game doesn't seem right without it; and 6-man builds operate under a radically different dynamic that many of us either dislike outright or do not have the interest to get used to. If you walked into RA/TA one day and saw someone complaining that they wanted to PvP weith 6 people; you'd probably tell them to HA. Imagine your surprise if they accuse you of marking those two modes of PvP as identical, and then proceed to burrow up your rectum and post all kinds of underhanded, snipish bullsh!t like I've been seeing from your evidently very angry keyboard.

Quote:

Why don't you go play PvE from Yak's Bend to Droks? It has a 6-man party size. Then all 6v6ers like you would be happy and we could have our tombs back. Yes, I know that's retarded. I just wanted to show you how your post looked.

What the hell is your problem? I'm allowed to express my opinions like anyone else; if you don't like them you don't have to read or respond to them: if you think they're unbelievably stupid leave it at that and let the post speak for itself (like what I did with your very civilized first reply to me). Getting this bent out of shape over someone expressing a contrary opinion (gasp!) is alarming, to say the least.

I don't honestly understand where you folks getting the idea that I "don't know the difference" between GvG and HA: the differenes are so profound that anyone with eyes can see them; and since I'm typing with a reasonable degree of accuracy I think we can assume I have the required equipment. I am not telling you GvG and HA are the same, I am telling you that it may be time to move on to a new mode of PvP if you dislike this one so intently. I don't blame you or anyone else for pushing for 8v8 tombs if that's what you want (and I'll be fine with that if you succeed) but Christ man, try to have a little bit of tact.

Gimme Money Plzkthx · Jan 07, 2007, 06:21 PM // 18:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by phasola

I can clearly say that you never played HA. People play IWAY, let them play it. Why didn't you nerf it a year ago when it first showed it's ugly head ? A single reduction to the IWAY skill would have killed, but no.
And what the hell do you mean counter-IWAY build ? Who ran anti IWAY ? You didn't need counters to beat IWAY, you just needed decent people that know what they are doing.

No one really ran anti-iway, but some builds did develop specifically to counter several fotms... hex heavy anyone? That build was practically a direct counter to bloodspike, iway, etc. in addition to pwning a lot of other builds at the same time...

EDIT:

Quote:

My point is that you people aren't mad you can't play 8v8 anymore, you're mad that you can't earn flashy emotes using the same builds that have worked until very recently.

Nope, you're wrong. I'm mad cause I can't play 8v8. Also, as a general rule, I know why I'm mad a lot better than you do. Insert coin to try again.

Nadia Roark · Jan 07, 2007, 06:31 PM // 18:31

Umm... you can play 8v8, just not in tombs (hence my "you cant earn flashy emotes...." statement). Sounds like someone was a few quarters short of a new game.

Gimme Money Plzkthx · Jan 07, 2007, 06:35 PM // 18:35

When people say ZOMFG I WANT 8V8 BACK, they're talking about 8v8 HA... 8v8 GvG and 8v8 HA are so different you can't just classify it as "8v8"

.........

tomcruisejr · Jan 07, 2007, 07:10 PM // 19:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by phasola

I can clearly say that you never played HA. People play IWAY, let them play it. Why didn't you nerf it a year ago when it first showed it's ugly head ? A single reduction to the IWAY skill would have killed, but no.

coz maybe nerfing/skill balancing based on Tombs settings is not a wise thing to do? or coz maybe it's the IWAY players filling up most of the districts of the Tombs (American districts i mean)?

Messner · Jan 07, 2007, 07:14 PM // 19:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nadia Roark

But wait! That's probably not the real reason we want 8 man tombs. We want 8-man tombs because it's what we're used to--it's a convention of PvP.

In all fairness Dagny, just because you're used to 8v8, doesn't mean everyone else still is. What the majority of players in this thread are saying is that we've adjusted to 6v6 and after seeing its effects, we want it back to 8v8.

Also, on the topic of mechanics and map/game balances with respect to 6v6 adjustments before a possible number of players is settled upon seems pretty dumb in my eyes. Map and game mechanics are going to function differently as a result of more or less players and I'm going to tell you that 90% of the changes made to create synergies with 6v6 are going to be problematic and require revamping if 8v8 is reverted the way this thread and many others like it have been requesting. To me it's the number issue that needs to be resolved first.

Legendary Shiz · Jan 07, 2007, 11:44 PM // 23:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Messner

In all fairness Dagny, just because you're used to 8v8, doesn't mean everyone else still is. What the majority of players in this thread are saying is that we've adjusted to 6v6 and after seeing its effects, we want it back to 8v8.

Agreed, infact I can safely say I feel more confident playing in 6v6. However, I feel like that because the skill I'm facing has severly decreased and there's nothing but lame fotms to run.