Curse

tomcruisejr · Jul 14, 2006, 01:42 AM // 01:42

i say delete all maps in ha and bring back 8 vs 8 vs 8 vs 8 vs 8 vs 8. and put fame in GvG.

Mental Leteci · Jul 14, 2006, 01:57 AM // 01:57

I say bring back the old tombs. I miss that shit so much. All that ganking and stuff <3

Alleji · Jul 14, 2006, 06:01 AM // 06:01

Tombs is flawed? It's called a metagame. If you ever played Magic the Gathering, you'd realize that there's nothing wrong with FotM builds. Tombs is not flawed, it's evolving, but sometimes it takes a beating with a nerfstick from anet to keep it evolving.

What it needs is some new maps and/or fixes to the current ones.

Crystallinity · Jul 14, 2006, 07:18 PM // 19:18

It's been said a million times before, but the fame system used for tombs is just a ridiculous pile of trash. Fame just sits there on your account, and inevitably adds up. No matter how utterly terrible, worthless and clueless you may be, as long as you are capable of winning at all - EVER - you can simply just PLAY MORE and earn ANY rank, given enough time.

A blind, deaf, motor-impaired monkey could take a team of henchmen into tombs and randomly bash his face into the keyboard until all the keys break off - but as long as he manages to win 1 match every couple days, he'll be rank 3 in a year.

The fame system in tombs is the equivalent of the GvG ladder being based on wins ONLY. Imagine what the GvG ladder would be like if the ONLY statistic measured was wins. Guilds like XoO, Dark Faith, Amazon Basin, would dominate the ladder, simply because they play 500-700+ matches a season. It wouldn't matter that they lose just as much as they win, or even if they lose MORE games than they win. Simply playing more than others, and winning a fraction of those games, would put them at the top of the ladder every season.

Imagine how frustrating a wins-only statistic system would be for the seriously talented guilds who win 10 times more GvG's than they lose - picture seeing something like this on the guild ladder: Guild Rank: #1, Wins: 300, Losses: 450.

The fame system is the same way - a statistic system that only rewards the number of games played, or in other words, time spent. The accumulation of fame requires no skill whatsoever, the only requirement is an investment of time. Sure, skilled players will get fame more quickly than the bad ones, but in the end there is no way to discriminate between the two unless you know them personally. Whether someone achieved rank X through playing a couple hours a day, totally steamrolling everything and owning halls, or whether they lost most of the time but played 10 hours a day for a year, the end result is the same... same rank, same title, same emote.

JR mentioned it on Weapon of Choice a few months ago - for fame to mean ANYTHING, you have to lose fame for losing, just as your guild loses rating on the ladder for losing. Otherwise fame is just a measurement of time spent / games won, with no respect for how often you win compared to how often you lose.

It would be fitting if titles reflected the builds played in order to get fame. For example, someone with more than 50% fame from IWAY would be a "Renowned IWAYer" instead of "Renowned Hero". That would be glorious, I would love to see if the IWAYers would still grind their emotes all day long, when it says right in their title how they got it! Of course, developing an automatic algorithm within GW that could identify and categorize builds in order to determine how much fame was earned with them would be next to impossible.

Aside from the problems with the fame system, the entire gamestyle encouraged by the maps in tombs is garbage as well. The maps have next to no strategic depth whatsoever, watching the positioning of teams fighting each other in tombs is like dumping a pile of trash on the ground and rolling in it.

The saddest part is that for some reason, this retarded, mindless, grind-centric, trashpile timesink of a PvP mode has unique and highly sought emotes associated with it, emotes which pretty much dwarf any other in-game rewards that have ever existed. If in-game emotes are to act as rewards for skilled players, then the emotes should by all means be removed from tombs/fame and reassociated with your guild's ladder rank (or even playoff performances) instead.

tomcruisejr · Jul 14, 2006, 08:04 PM // 20:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crystallinity

It's been said a million times before, but the fame system used for tombs is just a ridiculous pile of trash. Fame just sits there on your account, and inevitably adds up. No matter how utterly terrible, worthless and clueless you may be, as long as you are capable of winning at all - EVER - you can simply just PLAY MORE and earn ANY rank, given enough time.

A blind, deaf, motor-impaired monkey could take a team of henchmen into tombs and randomly bash his face into the keyboard until all the keys break off - but as long as he manages to win 1 match every couple days, he'll be rank 3 in a year.

The fame system in tombs is the equivalent of the GvG ladder being based on wins ONLY. Imagine what the GvG ladder would be like if the ONLY statistic measured was wins. Guilds like XoO, Dark Faith, Amazon Basin, would dominate the ladder, simply because they play 500-700+ matches a season. It wouldn't matter that they lose just as much as they win, or even if they lose MORE games than they win. Simply playing more than others, and winning a fraction of those games, would put them at the top of the ladder every season.

Imagine how frustrating a wins-only statistic system would be for the seriously talented guilds who win 10 times more GvG's than they lose - picture seeing something like this on the guild ladder: Guild Rank: #1, Wins: 300, Losses: 450.

The fame system is the same way - a statistic system that only rewards the number of games played, or in other words, time spent. The accumulation of fame requires no skill whatsoever, the only requirement is an investment of time. Sure, skilled players will get fame more quickly than the bad ones, but in the end there is no way to discriminate between the two unless you know them personally. Whether someone achieved rank X through playing a couple hours a day, totally steamrolling everything and owning halls, or whether they lost most of the time but played 10 hours a day for a year, the end result is the same... same rank, same title, same emote.

JR mentioned it on Weapon of Choice a few months ago - for fame to mean ANYTHING, you have to lose fame for losing, just as your guild loses rating on the ladder for losing. Otherwise fame is just a measurement of time spent / games won, with no respect for how often you win compared to how often you lose.

Aside from the problems with the fame system, the entire gamestyle encouraged by the maps in tombs is garbage as well. The maps have next to no strategic depth whatsoever, watching the positioning of teams fighting each other in tombs is like dumping a pile of trash on the ground and rolling in it.

The saddest part is that for some reason, this retarded, mindless, grind-centric, trashpile timesink of a PvP mode has unique and highly sought emotes associated with it, emotes which pretty much dwarf any other in-game rewards that have ever existed. If in-game emotes are to act as rewards for skilled players, then the emotes should by all means be removed from tombs/fame and reassociated with your guild's ladder rank (or even playoff performances) instead.

even more dangerous for people who value /rank. if fame based on +win/-losses system is implemented, there will be people who will just do tombs to tank rank 9++ groups. and imagine if they use "simple, mindless, noob builds". more tears will be shed in forums, ill see.

lyra_song · Jul 14, 2006, 08:17 PM // 20:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomcruisejr

even more dangerous for people who value /rank. if fame based on +win/-losses system is implemented, there will be people who will just do tombs to tank rank 9++ groups. and imagine if they use "simple, mindless, noob builds". more tears will be shed in forums, ill see.

If you a +9 team ganks a 0 PUG, the ranked team gets almost nothing.

If we truly wanted it to parallel with GvG, the ranks would reset every once in a while.

Now that would really piss some people off.

JR · Jul 14, 2006, 09:11 PM // 21:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomcruisejr

even more dangerous for people who value /rank. if fame based on +win/-losses system is implemented, there will be people who will just do tombs to tank rank 9++ groups. and imagine if they use "simple, mindless, noob builds". more tears will be shed in forums, ill see.

Er, and if the R9+ group loses then they surely DESERVE to take the hit? It is not like GvG when you jump on an unranked smurf to give someone a bigger rating hit. If you got beaten you would get beaten, end of story?

tomcruisejr · Jul 14, 2006, 10:44 PM // 22:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR-

Er, and if the R9+ group loses then they surely DESERVE to take the hit? It is not like GvG when you jump on an unranked smurf to give someone a bigger rating hit. If you got beaten you would get beaten, end of story?

fair enough.

Lando Griffen · Jul 14, 2006, 10:56 PM // 22:56

I don't think the rank system is that flawed, infact, the best groups usually aren't pugs, which is why people tend to overestimate the amount of FoTM builds being started. Just go and stand in some of the last international districts and you'll probably see lots of guild groups and friend groups. Just get some good friends to play with

I do think a nice map overhaul would be good though.

clareice starling · Jul 15, 2006, 01:12 AM // 01:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrBiggums

so the question is why hate on fotm players when tombs is flawed? and this is coming from a strictly iway/rangerspike player?

hmm should be interesting

Yes I monk for ranger spike quite often and i necro monked for iway a bit, but why should that matter? Do you just post to flame instead of what i said in the original post.. an intelligent discussion of the metamorphis of tombs through the updates.... Learn to read fool, I said nothing about hating on fotm players i said why do people complain about the situation when it was flawed from the start.

Also, the tombs does not really have a true metagame, although you see a lot of fotm you still see some pretty unique builds like monk obsidian flame spike, quickening zephyr builds etc that would not survive in gvg. And yes it was flawed from the start, if you had ever seen true spirit spam you would know....

studentochaos · Jul 15, 2006, 10:56 AM // 10:56

Philosophy wise there is nothing at all wrong with HA. The reason I say this is because people are making the assumption that rank is SUPPOSED to represent skill when really that is us players inventing a meaning for HA that is not supported by the historical data. HA rewards time spent pvping. For that you receive an emote that says to other players "I have done this a lot." However, a similar example would be FOW armor. Some PvE types associate this armor with skill when really all it says is this person has spent a lot of time spider farming, chest running, or whatever. A more modern example is the "friend of the luxon/kurzick titles" or the gladiator point titles. All of these titles or emotes or armors show you have spent a significant amount of time in the "after game". Is that a bad thing?

Anet gave its players a number of options of things they can do to enjoy their time playing a video game by essentially grinding something. Yet, GW is still a no grind game. They never made you do any of this, you choose to do it and most would assume that you had fun doing so. Tombs is a place to grind e peen. Yes holding maps limit tactics, but they also speed up battles and create clear objectives that support a metagame totally different from the other pvp styles. It is ok that HA is all FOTM builds, because that is a format. If that doesn't appeal to you, don't play it. However, "johnny" style players would surely love HA. It is a format where no punished losses mean innovative and interesting build thrive. You will never see 8 signet of midnight blackout beast masters in gvg, but it happens in HA. Some people have fun that way. "Spike" players know that signet of midnight blackout beast masters suck, but they just have a different kind of fun then "johnny." GW is letting everyone have a home.

I would like to make a quick note. Only one title, emote, or other e peen item even hints at skill and that is the champion title. In its original form it would exist so Last of Master could have a title that makes others flashing their tigers at him laughable (if that wasn't true enough already). However, now by lowering the requirements of it they have opened it up to more players and diminished its value, thus making it something people can *try* to grind for. I look forward to the first ranger spike guild that exist purely for the purpose of getting 1200 rating and "farming" gvg.

Random Nonsense · Jul 18, 2006, 03:58 AM // 03:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yunas Ele

If your build is only designed to hold HoH, obviously you're going to have struggles in other maps, the same way IWAY has struggles in holding maps. Your build is high holding power, no pressure.

Order of Apostasy, Distracting Blow and Edge of Extinction should take care of that, but only if you know what you are doing

.

Random Nonsense · Jul 18, 2006, 04:48 AM // 04:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crystallinity

JR mentioned it on Weapon of Choice a few months ago - for fame to mean ANYTHING, you have to lose fame for losing, just as your guild loses rating on the ladder for losing. Otherwise fame is just a measurement of time spent / games won, with no respect for how often you win compared to how often you lose.

If I lost fame by getting beat by bullshit builds, IWAY, and err 7 I'd be very pissed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crystallinity

Aside from the problems with the fame system, the entire gamestyle encouraged by the maps in tombs is garbage as well. The maps have next to no strategic depth whatsoever, watching the positioning of teams fighting each other in tombs is like dumping a pile of trash on the ground and rolling in it.

Before they change any more maps in Hero's Ascent, they need to fix a lot of bugs, like getting stuck in the ground on Dark Chambers, Sacred Temples, Saccred Earth. Being able to hit someone with a melee weapon from below the bridge in Underworld, and probably numerous other glitches that I once knew but forgot. I like the maps how they are, although they really could limit the time spent on Courtyard, and Broken Tower is just a really annoying map to play on.

shardfenix · Jul 18, 2006, 05:47 AM // 05:47

Not to make a complaint or flame to arenanet, but even if they wanted to "fix" tombs (heroes ascent), they couldn't. They already have work on 2 new chapters going on (based on the material in factions, it doesn't seem like they have many testers, so they spend extra long tuning everything), plus maintenance for the servers, bug fixes, special events, etc. They have 3 new realms of the gods coming out throughout the years. Extra "sorrow's furnace-like mini expansions. They have way too much to do than to strip out the flaws in HA and replace it with new, balanced environments.

As much as I would like to see the maps cleaned up from when they stopped 6-team battles (which I loved, but i know why they took them out.) They don't have the time.

With all the bugs, broken builds, bad programming, and everything else that makes guild wars less than a good game, I would hope A-net would hire more people who, no offense, know what they're doing. The programming in GW is less than impressive (I program a NWN module, it's hard work, but I would expect professionals to make it work properly after a whole year of public complaints). The only things they do a very good job on are things that ruin PvE gameplay, such as glitching drop ratios and undoable quests.

Back to the point. It just would not be possible for them to overhaul PvP gameplay. One step at a time, my friend.

shardfenix · Jul 18, 2006, 05:52 AM // 05:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crystallinity

The fame system in tombs is the equivalent of the GvG ladder being based on wins ONLY. Imagine what the GvG ladder would be like if the ONLY statistic measured was wins. Guilds like XoO, Dark Faith, Amazon Basin, would dominate the ladder, simply because they play 500-700+ matches a season. It wouldn't matter that they lose just as much as they win, or even if they lose MORE games than they win. Simply playing more than others, and winning a fraction of those games, would put them at the top of the ladder every season.

The fame system is the same way - a statistic system that only rewards the number of games played, or in other words, time spent. The accumulation of fame requires no skill whatsoever, the only requirement is an investment of time. Sure, skilled players will get fame more quickly than the bad ones, but in the end there is no way to discriminate between the two unless you know them personally. Whether someone achieved rank X through playing a couple hours a day, totally steamrolling everything and owning halls, or whether they lost most of the time but played 10 hours a day for a year, the end result is the same... same rank, same title, same emote.

JR mentioned it on Weapon of Choice a few months ago - for fame to mean ANYTHING, you have to lose fame for losing, just as your guild loses rating on the ladder for losing. Otherwise fame is just a measurement of time spent / games won, with no respect for how often you win compared to how often you lose.

You must realize, that a guild's gvg rank is not measured how you think. The guilds most of us think as good - iQ, EViL, TE, etc. win 90% of their battles or more. They are good guilds, and they know what they're doing. However, there are guilds who make it to the top 10 who have 300-150 records. 2 wins for every loss. That's bad. Your rank in GVG goes up as you play more, as long as you have more wins than losses. Almost no different from HoH.

Conan The Castrater · Jul 18, 2006, 07:53 PM // 19:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crystallinity

JR mentioned it on Weapon of Choice a few months ago - for fame to mean ANYTHING, you have to lose fame for losing, just as your guild loses rating on the ladder for losing. Otherwise fame is just a measurement of time spent / games won, with no respect for how often you win compared to how often you lose.

This quote is getting popular.

Agreed, a change is definitely needed to the current fame system. Big but coming up...

Losing fame for losses will just lead to an exasperation (microsoft word spellcheck ftw) of the situation many people are already pointing at. How many people are going to want to test new builds and take a gargantuan (no spellcheck this time) risk of losing their fame. Its not going to happen, in fact only the absolute dediacted few will even consider it, you would have just killed on any sign of creativity and everyone will stick to builds they know and are safe with, even more specific fotm builds where you will see even less variations.

Your point is taken in good faith, but I have yet to see an RPG has implemented an individual PvP ranking system that is close to ideal.

tomcruisejr · Jul 18, 2006, 08:13 PM // 20:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by shardfenix

You must realize, that a guild's gvg rank is not measured how you think. The guilds most of us think as good - iQ, EViL, TE, etc. win 90% of their battles or more. They are good guilds, and they know what they're doing. However, there are guilds who make it to the top 10 who have 300-150 records. 2 wins for every loss. That's bad. Your rank in GVG goes up as you play more, as long as you have more wins than losses. Almost no different from HoH.

we got seasons now in gvg. 300-150 win loss is like impossible to do unless you breath, eat, live GuildWars. and say youve got guilds like iq evil te win 90% of their battle and are in front page, guilds with 2:1 ratio wont be even be seen in front page.

and saying GvG is no different from HoH is the most pathetic thing ever.

Aug · Jul 18, 2006, 08:16 PM // 20:16

The ladder still rewards quantity over quality.

Seasons or not, the "best" (IMO) guilds aren't the top rated guilds, because of the above fact.

JR · Jul 18, 2006, 09:45 PM // 21:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aug

The ladder still rewards quantity over quality.

Er, no?

Beating a top guild will gain you a lot of points, beating a bad guild will earn you next to none. How is that quantity over quality?

It is hard to really debate this with current examples given the previous joke of a season, but if you look back at the previous longer seasons it was the same story. Guilds at the top of the ladder were consistantly good, as it was damn hard to get there and even harder to stay there. Yes the ladder encourages playing more, because the more wins you get the better obviously, but there is no point even trying if you aren't a decent guild.

It can in no way be compared to Heroes Ascent where you get the same number of points no matter who you beat, and never have to worry about losing them.

Random Nonsense · Jul 19, 2006, 12:13 AM // 00:13

Let's all quit and play Hellgate: London!