Curse

AC10 · Nov 19, 2006, 12:30 AM // 00:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by shardfenix

Wow. Incredible. A ghost can have song, stability, and SB on him and I could still interrupt him. You get a cookie if you figure it out. Hint: Read song of concentration again.
[skill]Song of Concentration[/skill]

I'm guessing something like Signet of Disenchantment + PD, although it's so long since I played HA I can't remember if PD interrupts Claim Resource through Song or not.

Bread Fan · Nov 19, 2006, 12:34 AM // 00:34

To sum up all your gibberish lorph, it is fair to say that you have a hard on for the PvE type game. Please stop repeating yourself it's a waste of a read, time and web space.

lorph · Nov 19, 2006, 12:40 AM // 00:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by shardfenix

Which brings us back to an old concept of PvP. GW is a game of rock paper scissors. You win or lose depending on what team you play against, not how good you are.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shardfenix

You just don't get it, do you? Guild Wars is supposed to be a game of skill.

I think you just don't get you have an identity crisis here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shardfenix

You want to keep heroes in HA because it gives new players a change to get easy fame.

No you misread what I write again. I am against all easy fame since I got most of my fame a long time ago. Heroes let people setup a group who don't have hours to make one of a similar quality, or lucky enough to know 5 other people that happen to be able to play at the same time and have a minimum standard of playing ability.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SilentVex

I have no problem with people getting easy rank, so long as it entails real skill and teamwork. Heroway requires neither.

I have trouble believing that the quality of "real skill" and "teamwork" people are getting in unranked group is much better than that of heroway. From heroway I see many things that unranked players can learn from. Such as kiting for monks which I often see missing from newb groups. Of course you are entitled to your opinions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SilentVex

About it being 'easy' to do that, well, if someone is indeed new at something wouldn't you expect them to have a harder time beating the more experienced?

Yes I do expect them to have a harder time, which is why I win against them constantly. I don't see what you are trying to argue here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SilentVex

Competition typically works this way. That's why unranked players only need 180 to their bambi, as opposed to multiple thousands like the newly r6 have to look forward to.

I really don't understand why you are arguing to me about how it should be easy getting a bambi. Just a moment ago you were complaining how now hero's are now .....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silent Vex

Now they're a method for farming a bambi.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silent Vex

Then complain about Hero Arenas sucking. I stay out of there for a reason, don't bring it to me.

Why do you think Arena.net allows Heroes in HA then?

Quote:

Originally Posted by AC10

I'm guessing something like Signet of Disenchantment + PD, although it's so long since I played HA I can't remember if PD interrupts Claim Resource through Song or not.

PD counts as an interrupt which song is impervious to, and Song of Concentration is unremovable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bread Fan

To sum up all your gibberish lorph, it is fair to say that you have a hard on for the PvE type game. Please stop repeating yourself it's a waste of a read, time and web space.

Yeah I have a hard on for PvE which is why I have been in several top 10 gvg guilds, been to playoffs, and played tombs ever since 8 w/mo's were holding halls.

Pkest · Nov 19, 2006, 12:51 AM // 00:51

I think it should be 3 heroes + 2 hench

Scizzors · Nov 19, 2006, 01:07 AM // 01:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pkest

I think it should be 3 heroes + 2 hench

Thats pretty much how it is atm in HA ... good input

DIH49 · Nov 19, 2006, 01:08 AM // 01:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by lorph

And then I ask you to extend this double standard to henchmen. No one has complained about henchmen. As Arenanet has already decided on policy and logical grounds that it is allowable to use AI under sanctioned uses, then we might as well get rid of henchmen as well. I think it is a good policy for players to play with something [heroes] which is better than nothing.

Oh, I'm certainly against henches as much as heroes. Henches simply aren't nearly as much of an issue though, since they are so bad they preclude their own use. Were henches updated so they weren't as terrible, I'd be lobbying far harder against them. As it stands, while they are an issue, they are not the pressing one that heroes are.

As to the "something is better than nothing" argument, I think that is prima facie false. The argument is essentially "accessibility over value". But consider this scenario: suppose I created a special zone for PvE and PvP characters, where they could enter right at the onset of creation. There's nothing in this zone but the map and it goes nowhere. Is this a good zone? If we accept the accessibility argument, then it seems we have to argue that this is in fact a good zone. After all, it's universally accessible. But is it actually a good zone? Clearly not. No one would ever go to this zone, and I'd be thought an idiot for making it. And for good reason, because I had missed the whole point of map making. The purpose of a map is not to be accessible, it is to be valuable. The reason my example mapped failed was because I put accessibility over value. Take FoW and UW as examples (or the elite factions missions). They aren't all that accessible, but they've very valuable. As such, hordes of PvEers want to get in and do their best to do so. Hell, they even pay to get in. The conclusion is clear: accessibility is a function of value, not the other way around. Heroes necessarily decrease the value of HA, and so their added accessibility simply misses the point.

Yunas Ele · Nov 19, 2006, 01:47 AM // 01:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by lorph

IYeah I have a hard on for PvE which is why I have been in several top 10 gvg guilds, been to playoffs, and played tombs ever since 8 w/mo's were holding halls.

I'll leave you and shard to your argueing (I've voiced my opinion on the issue numerous times in other threads, no need to repeat), but if you're going to make those claims, back them up. Now I'm not doubting you, you could very well be telling the truth but at least tell us the names of some of these guilds or some kind of proof (at the very least the name of the guild you went to play offs with...), because as it stands right now, you could of easilly pulled that statement out of your ass.

lorph · Nov 19, 2006, 02:31 AM // 02:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yunas Ele

I'll leave you and shard to your argueing (I've voiced my opinion on the issue numerous times in other threads, no need to repeat), but if you're going to make those claims, back them up. Now I'm not doubting you, you could very well be telling the truth but at least tell us the names of some of these guilds or some kind of proof (at the very least the name of the guild you went to play offs with...), because as it stands right now, you could of easilly pulled that statement out of your ass.

I knew this would come up sooner or later. However, I have trouble understanding why my credentials have anything to do with the points I made.

So you can see a general history of my guilds here.

http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s...&postcount=383

If the screenshot attached below here doesn't convince you my word is good, I don't know what will, but I'm not going to bother trying after that.

I have additional proof but I don't feel like opening up paint and converting from bmp and giving you access to private forums that these guilds have used. Besides this doesn't further my argument here at all and is off topic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DIH49

As to the "something is better than nothing" argument, I think that is prima facie false. The argument is essentially "accessibility over value". But consider this scenario: suppose I created a special zone for PvE and PvP characters, where they could enter right at the onset of creation. There's nothing in this zone but the map and it goes nowhere. Is this a good zone? If we accept the accessibility argument, then it seems we have to argue that this is in fact a good zone. After all, it's universally accessible. But is it actually a good zone? Clearly not. No one would ever go to this zone, and I'd be thought an idiot for making it. And for good reason, because I had missed the whole point of map making. The purpose of a map is not to be accessible, it is to be valuable. The reason my example mapped failed was because I put accessibility over value. Take FoW and UW as examples (or the elite factions missions). They aren't all that accessible, but they've very valuable. As such, hordes of PvEers want to get in and do their best to do so. Hell, they even pay to get in. The conclusion is clear: accessibility is a function of value, not the other way around. Heroes necessarily decrease the value of HA, and so their added accessibility simply misses the point.

To take your logic to the logical other end, if it was indeed applicable, we
consider this scenario:

Suppose I created a special zone for people who only have PvP characters and PvE characters can never play in, where they could not enter unless they had 900,000 hours played. However, it is infinitely valuable, providing infinite fame, gold, and items, fun, and value. [Yes it can have value without being accesible at all since you state that value is independent of the variable of accesibility.] Is this a good area? If we take the argument that accessibility is a function of value, and a seeming inversely propotional one which you suggest, then yes this must be a good area.

Obviously in reality it has no value to anyone in such a state as it can never be accessed. Therefore your assumptions in trying to provide a situation that attempts to correlates accessibility solely as a function of value is invalid. And therefore having accessibility in an area increases its value, since we can all agree that if someone can access that area, then it has a lot more use.

So in a nutshell you were trying to compare hoh with an empty valueless place which it most certainly isn't, even now.

And assume this likely situation. All heroes have been removed from HA, people are waiting in the vault, HoH shows up with many 1v1 matches. These situations are likely and inferior and have happened in the past. I would rather be playing against heroway than waiting, and seeing waiting for match messages. I am sure most people feel the same.

Polarbear1492 · Nov 19, 2006, 02:35 AM // 02:35

This might be a long rant xD
I think it should go back to NO heroes or henchmen at ALL in HA.
The reason being HA is pretty much most of the truly competitive PvP in Guild Wars. Before a flame session starts on how important GvG and ABs are, let me just say this: GvG=Guild Vs Guild. You fight for your guild. AB=Alliance Battle. You fight for your alliance. HA= You fight for a whole country to gain favor. Or to get some kick ass drops =] Seriously, out of the three, which really personifies PvP? I think its HA.
All three are done hopefully for fun, but I hope you can see my reasoning. HA is simply the essence of PvP.
Now that we have established that HA is the essence of PvP, I want to elaborate on why Heroes should be removed-completely.
PvP=Player vs Player
Hero=player?
Gaile remarked that a Hero is an extension of the player. That may be true but so are the builds that got nerfed by the introduction of Heroes. A build is a player's intellectual extension; why should they be nerfed but not the more "tangible" extensions, which are Heroes?
I understand that Anet is trying to serve the interests of everyone, but I think the motivation of this update is to make it easier for newer players. A whole other thread can be built talking about this. In any case, I think its wrong to have heroes in HA.
/endrant

DIH49 · Nov 19, 2006, 03:53 AM // 03:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by lorph

Obviously in reality it has no value to anyone in such a state as it can never be accessed. Therefore your assumptions in trying to provide a situation that attempts to correlates accessibility solely as a function of value is invalid. And therefore having accessibility in an area increases its value, since we can all agree that if someone can access that area, then it has a lot more use.

What you've demonstrated is that having a highly valuable place with no accessibility is useless (although not, per hypothesis, valueless). I agree. Let's look at HA though in reference to this. Is the old HA in such a state that it is very valuable but not accessible at all, such as you claim? Clearly not. People from everywhere were entering and playing and enjoying the experience. All the ranked people now began as unranked players, so clearly the obstacle is not insurmountanle. Is it like I say it is now with the current HA, where everyone can easily access it but it provides little value? It seems to. Everyone can take in a hero/hench group and enjoy a relatively valueless experience. We have a problem with your scenario in that it does not accurately describe anything related to what's going on. It serves merely to point out the other end of the spectrum, which while nice from a theoretical perspective doesn't really add anything to the discussion.

Even if we accept your scenario, what it tells us is that we need to make our highly valuable area accessible for it to be useful. I agree, since all this does is reinforce my argument for accessibility being a function of value. In your scenario we have the value, but lack the accessibility. This shows clearly that we must begin with value and add accessibility, while mine demonstrates that doing this the other way around misses the point. Assuming a problem with accessibility in HA, the solution is to change the accessibility, not decrease the value.

Quote:

So in a nutshell you were trying to compare hoh with an empty valueless place which it most certainly isn't, even now.

If the value of the arena is having a PvP tournament, then I make the claim that the arena is, at the current time, almost completely valueless.

Quote:

And assume this likely situation. All heroes have been removed from HA, people are waiting in the vault, HoH shows up with many 1v1 matches. These situations are likely and inferior and have happened in the past. I would rather be playing against heroway than waiting, and seeing waiting for match messages. I am sure most people feel the same.

This is not an argument. You're just trying to deflect the discussion onto different grounds, namely the skipping issue. But we are not talking about the skipping or 1v1 HoH issue, we are talking about heroes.

vapor311 · Nov 19, 2006, 04:07 AM // 04:07

One other point that has previously been mentioned perhaps not in this thread, but I have seen elsewhere is adding a time limit to "Annihilation maps". Annihilation maps are about killing the other team. If you cannot kill each other in let's say 20 minutes, you both lose, back to start. There's no reason that you should have these infinitely long games between 2 holding teams which get settled by /roll 100. Force people to put more offense in their builds.
Of course it all goes back to making more people play the maps that are out there. Alot of the crap builds that are out there wouldn't make it through if they had to play every map. How do you get people to play every map? Reduce the amount of skips. How do you reduce the amount of skips? Add more people. How do you add more people? Increase the quality of the rewards for the gametype.

lorph · Nov 19, 2006, 04:36 AM // 04:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by DIH49

If the value of the arena is having a PvP tournament, then I make the claim that the arena is, at the current time, almost completely valueless.

You can make the observation about this, but as for evidence that heroes are to blame for the majority of value loss, there is a lack of evidence. Like I mentioned before there are people making human groups,

Quote:

Originally Posted by DIH49

Even if we accept your scenario, what it tells us is that we need to make our highly valuable area accessible for it to be useful. I agree, since all this does is reinforce my argument for accessibility being a function of value.

This does not follow since the useless (because it cannot be accessed by anyone) "valuable area" gains value by increasing accesibility, then by this situation, value becomes a function of accessibility.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DIH49

We have a problem with your scenario in that it does not accurately describe anything related to what's going on. It serves merely to point out the other end of the spectrum, which while nice from a theoretical perspective doesn't really add anything to the discussion.

And tell me how your completely empty, valueless, but completely accessible area is anywhere in the realm of reality. It seems like a theoretical perspective to me, and I had just pointed out using an extension of your own logic that it was flawed and did not add anything to the discussion.

Suppose we assume my scenario. You say that "Assuming a problem with accessibility in HA, the solution is to change the accessibility, not decrease the value."

So my point is that there at least was an accessibility problem, in that as the number of Guild Wars has reached saturation levels, the amount of players that have some sort of rank, that contnue to gain rank, and participate in rank discrimination continues to rise at a far greater pace than the influx of new Guildwars Hoh players, which means that these people have a smaller pool of players to play with. Heroes was a way to deal with this problem, and still seems like the best solution. As most of us admit, heroes are nothing compared to humans, and the incentive is there that people choose to run full human groups if they can and if it is rewarding.

To take away options just because heroes have filled the place of humans bored of 1 hour matches against dual paragons is wrong: This is avoiding the real issue. Solve the real issue, and heroes will become a minority like henchmen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DIH49

This is not an argument. You're just trying to deflect the discussion onto different grounds, namely the skipping issue. But we are not talking about the skipping or 1v1 HoH issue, we are talking about heroes.

If you don't call it an argument then call it an observation. With less groups going on you will have a gap left to be filled, and a decrease in quality which is directly applicable to the issue of heroes.

phasola · Nov 19, 2006, 10:34 AM // 10:34

Less edrama plx.
I wonder if Galie's gonna bother reading all of this

.

Scizzors · Nov 19, 2006, 10:42 AM // 10:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by phasola

Less edrama plx.
I wonder if Galie's gonna bother reading all of this

.

Nah i think she gave up on the second page lol

Kobold Seer · Nov 19, 2006, 04:12 PM // 16:12

Spamming this thread with debates about 8v8, resetting fame, and nerfing searing flames all run the risk of annoying A-net to the point of not bothering to ask our opinion. It also causes potential readers of the thread to be forced to stop reading, because it simply would take several hours to read it all. A carefully reasoned response to the original questions, written in as few words as possible, would likely be much more effective. I care deeply about this topic, but it has gotten so out of control I don't have time to read every post.

Thomas.knbk · Nov 19, 2006, 04:43 PM // 16:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaile Gray

Geez, Randomway, did you see anything in my post about "We're considering going from 6v6 back to 8v8?" Let's keep the topic on topic, shall we?

Can someone post a link to this thread plx?

QoH · Nov 19, 2006, 05:46 PM // 17:46

max limit should be this: You can't have more hero/hench on your team than human player. Other words, you need at least 3 humans to enter.

Removing heroes fully from HA would be a big mistake.

phasola · Nov 19, 2006, 06:10 PM // 18:10

Quote:

Removing heroes fully from HA would be a big mistake.

And why is that ?

Lord Mendes · Nov 19, 2006, 06:15 PM // 18:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by QoH

Removing heroes fully from HA would be a big mistake.

Care to explain why?
I mean people have been making some pretty long and convincing posts about why heroes have to be fully removed from HA and you are simply stating that removing them completely would be a big mistake without any reasons to back up your claim.

DIH49 · Nov 19, 2006, 06:52 PM // 18:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by lorph

You can make the observation about this, but as for evidence that heroes are to blame for the majority of value loss, there is a lack of evidence. Like I mentioned before there are people making human groups,

I did not say heroes were to blame for the majority of value loss. In fact, I left that statement vague on purpose precisely because there were so many reasons. HA lacking value is the cause of a variety of factors of which heroes are simply one. However, heroes are one reason, and so should be dealt with accordingly.

Quote:

This does not follow since the useless (because it cannot be accessed by anyone) "valuable area" gains value by increasing accesibility, then by this situation, value becomes a function of accessibility.

Now you're mixing up our terms. The value area doesn't gain value by adding accessibility, it gains what I have termed "usefulness". And I absolutely agree, it does. I'm all for valuable and useful zones, arenas, whatevers.

Quote:

And tell me how your completely empty, valueless, but completely accessible area is anywhere in the realm of reality. It seems like a theoretical perspective to me, and I had just pointed out using an extension of your own logic that it was flawed and did not add anything to the discussion.

It is close to the realm of reality because that is effectively the state that the current HA is in. Anyone can roll a PvP character and visit HA (assuming they have it unlocked). Anyone can then fill a party with heroes and henches (assuming they have the heroes unlocked). There we have super-accessibility. They can then enter into a zone (or a series if you prefer) that is, for PvP, essentially valueless.

Quote:

Heroes was a way to deal with this problem, and still seems like the best solution. As most of us admit, heroes are nothing compared to humans, and the incentive is there that people choose to run full human groups if they can and if it is rewarding.

I absolutely agree unconditionally that there is an accessibility problem for HA. Heroes are not the solution though, because they have no future. In terms of accessibility, all heroes are is a stopgap. They won't solve any problems, merely delay them. As you noted, "heroes are nothing compared to humans." What does this tell us? It tells us that for people to improve themselves they will eventually require people. We must ask then, does working with heroes provide you the skills for working with people? The answer is a clear and obvious no. Any variety of fundamental distinctions exists. Humans are independent agents, bots are only somewhat. Humans have attitudes and behaviors, bots do not. Humans have ideas, bots do not. The list goes on. As an accessibility cure, Heroes just don't do it. You still end up needing to find people to play with, and heroes have provided you with none of the skills you need. Not GW skills, but people skills (although GW skill definitely helps and I seriously question whether heroes will gain you that either).

The solution to this problem is one we've known about for over a year now: an efficient and effective grouping system (preferably cross-district). This solves the largest difficulty of HA right out (largest in terms of player base, not the arena in and of itself). Dozens, perhaps hundreds of models have been proposed over various forums, so I see no need to get into specifics here. Besides, I'm getting off-topic anyways.

Quote:

If you don't call it an argument then call it an observation. With less groups going on you will have a gap left to be filled, and a decrease in quality which is directly applicable to the issue of heroes.

A difference in quality? Surely not. You and I agree that hero teams have less quality than people teams. If you remove heroes you will be seeing far more people teams. That's an increase in quality. What you will have less is of quantity. You will have fewer matches, but those will be better. Those will actually be PvP, and that is all the difference.

************************************************** ********

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kobold Seer

Spamming this thread with debates about 8v8, resetting fame, and nerfing searing flames all run the risk of annoying A-net to the point of not bothering to ask our opinion.

Nah. There are three possible ways for Anet to take a look here. They could simply not read it, they could read it as a user, or they could read it as a dev.

If they don't read it, I can't annoy them.

If they read it as a user, then who cares if they don't like it? They're a user like anyone else, and as long as I break no rules then they can just not read my posts.

If they read it as a dev, then they're doing it professionally, in which case it's their job and I expect a degree of proffessionalism. That includes judging ideas based on merit, taking a general feel for the community, etc. None of that is precluded by my writing long posts on 3rd party boards not officially with Anet in any way.

Quote:

It also causes potential readers of the thread to be forced to stop reading, because it simply would take several hours to read it all.

How absurd. Are you seriously trying to propose that I and others not post because it puts a burden on the reader? Here's a quick fix: if you don't want to read something, don't do it.