Curse

Effendi Westland · May 11, 2006, 06:50 AM // 06:50

/notsigned

I like it how it is.

Frantic-Sheep · May 11, 2006, 08:41 AM // 08:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoDiamonds

My preferences:

You can join a battle with 1-4 players. I want to be able to get into games quickly. I don't care that much about making a tight, coordinated group of four, because it's not clear that a group of four is a useful unit most of the time during the battle. See following comment. I like that you can't start with a full group of twelve. Chaos is fun.
You can see all twelve players in the party list. If this is broken into subsections it's fine, but not at all required and possibly even detrimental to do so, since staying as a party of four is not, in fact, a particularly useful strategy. It's inane for the game designers to force that particular constraint on players once in battle. Most of the time you will want to be in a group of 1,2,3,5,6,7,8,9,10,11, or 12, instead of 4. That's simply true.
Team chat goes to all twelve players. To be a bit brutally honest, the current implementation is patently absurd. I hope there are designers at ArenaNet who were foaming at the mouth at this when it was introduced, or who were somehow uninformed and didn't realize that communication with the full twelve person team was missing. Game designers who are making a cooperative team game where players can't speak to each other without speaking to the enemy need to have their head examined. Admit you made a mistake on this, and quickly fix it, please.

Thanks for listening, ArenaNet.

Can't agree more. Although I would love to go in with 12 of my alliance, I can guess its 'overpowered' or some sort...

/signed

Lord Dark Genie · May 11, 2006, 09:26 AM // 09:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoDiamonds

My preferences:
[LIST][*]You can join a battle with 1-4 players. I want to be able to get into games quickly. I don't care that much about making a tight, coordinated group of four, because it's not clear that a group of four is a useful unit most of the time during the battle. See following comment. I like that you can't start with a full group of twelve. Chaos is fun.

/not signed

Forcing 4 player groups forces at least *some* balance.
And people are less likely to quit/grief if they need 10-15min to get their group.

A bit less random = a slight bit more balanced teams imo.

It's like TA vs RA. TA teams are still bad most of the time, but just coming in with a boon prot doesn't automatically make you win 10 games in a row....

Vinsanity · May 11, 2006, 09:30 AM // 09:30

/signed

good posts people, all my words are taken.

Jared The Faithfull · May 11, 2006, 09:58 AM // 09:58

/signed, but force people to make a group of 4. And also restrict HP, Orders, Aegis etc to your party of 4 only (or the closest 8, liked that one).

=HT=Ingram · May 11, 2006, 10:35 AM // 10:35

This is the proposed modification from another thread.

just rude · May 12, 2006, 03:28 AM // 03:28

if oyu can't stay in a group and go cap with 4 why do you think you should be able to see 12, that would only worsen the problem.

/disgruntled luxon

JoDiamonds · May 12, 2006, 12:49 PM // 12:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord Dark Genie

/not signed

Forcing 4 player groups forces at least *some* balance.
And people are less likely to quit/grief if they need 10-15min to get their group.

A bit less random = a slight bit more balanced teams imo.

While I understand the sentiment here, it doesn't actually work.

I, and other players who don't feel that a group of 4 is the ideal size to stay in at all times during Alliance Battles, will merely invite anyone they can until there are four players and then jump in.

Sure, it is slightly more annoying for players like us, but there is no way to really force groups of four. All of the limitations currently in the game are arbitrary and actually completely unenforcable, except that things like Aegies won't affect other players (which I won't deny is pretty major, but when I want to be in a group of 3 or 1 anyway it doesn't really matter).

In short, there's really nothing gained by making players randomly join up into four random people. I'm sure some people like being in a group of four coordinated people (and many people will want to do that some of the time), but no one can make people coordinate who don't want to.

HydroX · May 12, 2006, 01:59 PM // 13:59

/signed

I miss this layout of the preview event.

Yanman.be · May 12, 2006, 02:07 PM // 14:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by =HT=Ingram

This is the proposed modification from another thread.

Man that would be perfect....how about adding a little button so you can turn the allies off? so you can actually choose? xD

granor · May 12, 2006, 02:15 PM // 14:15

/not signed

I like the fact that the battles are not hyper orginized, rank required, power trips.

In order to keep the 12v12 for the masses it MUST not be too organized.

Yanman.be · May 12, 2006, 02:21 PM // 14:21

How can it be too organized? I mean, you should be able to receive healing from a monk on your alliance...right now it's hard for the monk to judge the hp without clicking you...

Allowing 1-4 players to enter at the same time, will even improve 12vs12 for the masses, because you don't need a team now.

Loch · May 12, 2006, 04:46 PM // 16:46

Quote:

How can it be too organized? I mean, you should be able to receive healing from a monk on your alliance...right now it's hard for the monk to judge the hp without clicking you...

Bring a monk on your team before you enter the match. Not a difficult concept.

JoDiamonds · May 12, 2006, 05:25 PM // 17:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loch

Bring a monk on your team before you enter the match. Not a difficult concept.

Loch, you often say things that are good ideas for playing the game the way it is. These things are generally true and interesting. Trouble is that you seem to miss the point: People don't like the game the way it is (at least in parts; most anyone posting here obviously like Guild Wars).

It's all good to state useful strategy: "With the current Alliance Battles system, you should bring a monk with your group of four." This is a perfectly concrete suggestion, testable in game, debatable in of itself, yadda yadda, good for discussion. Comments like these definitely a place in the Alliances forum.

Except you keep saying things like that after someone else says, "It would be useful if you could see all twelve party members, because then a healer can heal anyone in the group."

The fact that it's a good idea to have a healer in each group (as is) has nothing to do with the fact that it would still be useful to be able to heal any of your eleven allies. Both things are true, entirely independent of one another.

Quote:

I like the fact that the battles are not hyper orginized, rank required, power trips.

In order to keep the 12v12 for the masses it MUST not be too organized.

I agree with this. However, I don't understand why that must mean you can't see all of your allies in the party bar. I do agree that this is an argument for letting teams smaller than four into a group, and not allowing players to setup an entire 12-man team beforehand (which is not what is proposed in this thread, generally).

SnipiousMax · May 12, 2006, 06:21 PM // 18:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by granor

/not signed

I like the fact that the battles are not hyper orginized, rank required, power trips.

In order to keep the 12v12 for the masses it MUST not be too organized.

I whole heartedly agree that it must be a bit unorganized to be enjoyable for the majority of the people....but Having a side bar showing your allies would definately take great strides in making alliance battles more enjoyable (yes I changed my mind). Player's should feel free to split/join with they're group as they see fit, or as the battle dictates.... But it must be assured that group affecting spells (HP, Aegis, Orders, Etc) must only affect your four man cell, cause otherwise it'd throw balance out the window. I'm not sure I agree with the communicaton thing.... Would make to many people start screaming noob at everyone that didn't listen to them. I like having to do what's neccesary, without being told to do it... to me that adds appeal to the alliance battle.

nkabuto · May 12, 2006, 06:51 PM // 18:51

Quote:

Bring a monk on your team before you enter the match. Not a difficult concept.

_You havent played a monk in AB, have you ?
_How about a ally is near you and he is losing health, if you dont click to him and dont watch for him, how the hell could you save him ?
_I agree with a monk in each team but in a chaotic battle like AB, when people got died and resed, monk cant be everywhere.

Loch · May 12, 2006, 08:36 PM // 20:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by nkabuto

_You havent played a monk in AB, have you ?

I've played Monk plenty of times.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nkabuto

_How about a ally is near you and he is losing health, if you dont click to him and dont watch for him, how the hell could you save him ?

My job is to keep my four-player team protected. It's not my duty to babysit the other eight idiots who didn't bring a Monk.

iridescentfyre · May 12, 2006, 08:58 PM // 20:58

Not signed.

The way to win Alliance battles is to stick with your 3 teammates, not cluster into a huge group that caps shrines one at a time. Having all 12 on one Party window definitely encouraged that kind of play and was a frustration of mine during the FPE.

Furthermore its a hell of a lot easier to be a monk NOW, where you don't have to try to heal 11 people, you have to heal 3. During the FPE, you might see someone's healthbar go down and went to heal them only to find that they weren't even in radar distance of you.. and while you're figuring that out, others who are closer to you are dying as well.

Its only harder on monks now if you still think its your job to heal your entire 12-person team.

Guitary Boy · May 14, 2006, 10:36 AM // 10:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by =HT=Ingram

This is the proposed modification from another thread.

/Signed- that would solves every ones problems, monks could focus on their group for healing but if they see an "Ally" in need of healing they could also then heal them (Due to the amount of groups with monks)
Oh and i think they should stop you from being able to just leave an allience battle, because its not just other players in the fight your affecting, its every one on luxen/kurzick side of the game when you lose and they then push you back. Just those 1 or 2 players can actually make quite a differance.

sir lockt · May 14, 2006, 02:38 PM // 14:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guitary Boy

Oh and i think they should stop you from being able to just leave an allience battle, because its not just other players in the fight your affecting, its every one on luxen/kurzick side of the game when you lose and they then push you back. Just those 1 or 2 players can actually make quite a differance.

euh... we are talking about a MMO... that just happens. Ppl get errors, a lot of ppl have mums that seems to be very angry when its nappynappy time... so if you dont want them to leave.. the'll just go afk. Thats the nice think about MMO's you are playing with REAL ppl, nice ppl, annoying, leaving ppl.

And although Loch doesnt consider it his task to babysit all his allies (which is in essence a good point, every team has his own strategy, maybe dying is a valid one) I pointed out in one of the dozen other threads about a difference in strategy a full overview of 12 ppl can give.

Is there a Moderator around that can merge all these threads? its a bit annoying not to know in which one you posted what.. lol.. Maybe i am just a little messed up