Curse

MrJingle · May 16, 2006, 02:02 PM // 14:02

Personally I think that alliance battles should be improved in some way. I mean anet made sure that the alliance battles effect many "minor" things like what merchant you can or cant sell to or if you have a friendly shrine in that present "explorable" area. So why not give the players more incentive to participate in alliance battles and really make it stand out along with the other aspects of Guild Wars. For example people who win the halls of heroes get their team name announced to everyone online and help get favor for their country, and for the more PvE orriented there is the aspiration of participating in elite missions. So what about alliance battles? Should pushing the red and blue line back and forth for some faction and a little self-satisfaction of "beating the other guy" be all we get out of it?

If not then what could be done to improve the alliance battle experience?
or
Does the present alliance battle system not even need a "fix"?

BTW I didn't really look around for a similar topic so if there's already a million topics on this then plz accept my "oops".

Gonzo · May 16, 2006, 02:43 PM // 14:43

"oops" accepted

Actually, I like the Alliance battle's. I liked them more in the FPE, treu, but with these squads at least some understandable communication is possible.

MrJingle · May 16, 2006, 03:01 PM // 15:01

Thanks for the reply. Maybe a neat feature would be keeping the same alliance battle type and adding a couple more options of play. Presently there are three 4-man teams so it probly wouldn't be too hard to have another area on the map where you can have two 6-man teams on each side and finally a fully 12-man team on each side. Of couse with new maps would nice to go with these options. The problems I could see with this would be some kind of balance issue, but anet does know how to swing a nerf stick at something.

Eviance · May 16, 2006, 03:54 PM // 15:54

Most people want communication and to be able to see the full party and draw on the map and ping as well..... To accomplish this without having massive skill power overload (that people are/were freaking out over), they could split the team 4/8 the eight being allies. This alone would be a simple enough fix.
From then we could still speak in team chat or some form of "other" chat (that isn't local!).

Many people want to enter solo again because trying to get a group takes forever and then there is the waiting for the dang thing to actually start... Simply put: It's not worth it!
The rumor was that they changed it because people were complaining about leavers. There are other ways to punish leavers (penalties and such). Some are worried about faction farming bots and the such... Well when they are reported Anet should do something about it. Granted someone tells us that is not Anet really responding (I know that, and it annoys me at times but its understandable). However when they recieve a report about someone who may be a bot they should go check it out.
If someone is reported for faction farming there should be a way to get the whole group or majority to acknowledge that that person didn't move the whole time (same as a bot) and get something done about it. While it might not be against the Eula its doing the same basic process as a faction farming bot and personally I think it should be treated as one. Put on a temporary ban or something. There should be a way to teach people like that a lesson.

Even tho I have been tempted to prove that it is still being done in the current setup >_> Yes I know its cruel but I am tired of people saying it makes it better ... Maybe... a little... But it can still be done and heck if you are lucky, maybe one day you will run into a whole 4man team of faction farmers or leavers (seen the team of 4 leave before and it wasn't pretty). Face it who wants to stick around being the only person in their group and no real way of contacting the other two parties....

Or is he/she supposed to yell over local chat: Hey yeah my whole team quit on me, I am all alone where are you other two groups, I am by the rez port!....

........ I shudder to think what will happen if anything >_<

Anyways someone has an example floating around of a nice 4/8 design (I've always been to lazy to make one). So either go hunt one of the 60million I hate AB threads or something... Anyways that is my take.

Snowman · May 16, 2006, 03:57 PM // 15:57

All that needs improving is communication between the other teams.

But they do need to add a 'feature' where by Alliances can Fight Alliances ! similar to Guilds Vs Guilds, but this isnt nessesarily an improvment to alliance battles more of an addition.

MrJingle · May 17, 2006, 10:22 AM // 10:22

I like snowman's idea of 2 actual alliances battling it out like a GvG I think that would be very fun to try out. Now that I think about it... the alliance battles arent really "Alliance" battles they should probly be named faction battles instead.

Eet GnomeSmasher · May 17, 2006, 10:27 AM // 10:27

This incarnation simply is bad. And it still doesnt prevent people from quitting. People are STILL quitting. So now we have 3 squads of people who can't communicate AND quitters. Yeah...nice improvement...

Effendi Westland · May 17, 2006, 10:34 AM // 10:34

I did not like the system as it was duting the FPE, I love the way it is now. The OP is talking about some incentive for participating, would love to see something like that, but as to the battles themselves: DONT CHANGE ANYTHING!!!

Snowman · May 17, 2006, 11:29 AM // 11:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrJingle

Now that I think about it... the alliance battles arent really "Alliance" battles they should probly be named faction battles instead.

And this is the main complaint that people have! everyone was expecting a battle between alliances.. but what we have here doesnt resemble its description in anyway what-so-ever! What we have is great fun, and a different level of strategy, but its just doesnt do what it says on the tin!

Thats why there is so much hate about it, people feel conned, mislead, deceived - Shame on you ANET!

MrJingle · May 17, 2006, 06:09 PM // 18:09

Anyway, as for communication I'm sure anet won't let it stay the way it is. Something I could see them do is just have the three squads on each alliance battle communicate in team chat but just have a number next to the name of players or have a color highlight for each squad.
Something I thought for incentives to play alliance battles more would be some kind of tier'd progression so when 1 side wins they arent just disbanded back to "town" from the alliance battle like the losers. Instead they could possibly be sent to another "town" area that is only accessible by winning the previous match and keep progressing in that way untill they lose or reach the highest level of alliance battles.
That would also give players a chance to kick AFK'ers or fill in holes because of leavers. Another way would be to do it just like heroes ascent and with each victory you are whisked to the next playing field.

Loch · May 18, 2006, 09:42 PM // 21:42

I whole-heartedly approve of any AB change that encourages people to play as seperate teams of four instead of one big chaotic mob of twelve. The changes to AB after the FPE did exactly that. Keeping every team of four isolated basically tells the players, "Here's who you have to work with, now cooperate and get those shrines!" They probably don't want to add an Allies tab and full 12-player communication because these things don't fit in with how they want people playing the mode, and would further encourage teams to stick close together. As it is now, you build a small team, you communicate amongst the team, and you coordinate along with the team, it doesn't need another layer of communication to make the system work as intended. Full-party chat would be ignored by half-decent teams anyway, since they won't go around just trusting random peoples' judgement.

And instead of making fun of the whiners who don't want to put together a 4-player team, I'll just suggest that they to go play Fort Aspenwood (or Jade Quarry, if anybody decides to show up there some day).

JoDiamonds · May 18, 2006, 11:13 PM // 23:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loch

I whole-heartedly approve of any AB change that encourages people to play as seperate teams of four instead of one big chaotic mob of twelve. The changes to AB after the FPE did exactly that. Keeping every team of four isolated basically tells the players, "Here's who you have to work with, now cooperate and get those shrines!" They probably don't want to add an Allies tab and full 12-player communication because these things don't fit in with how they want people playing the mode, and would further encourage teams to stick close together. As it is now, you build a small team, you communicate amongst the team, and you coordinate along with the team, it doesn't need another layer of communication to make the system work as intended. Full-party chat would be ignored by half-decent teams anyway, since they won't go around just trusting random peoples' judgement.

I disagree with nearly everything said here. =)

I don't want to encourage people to play as a group of 12 any more than I want to encourage people to play as a group of 4. Tactically, those are usually the wrong group sizes, except for the fact that UI essentially forces you into groups of four.

And even if ArenaNet loves it the way it is, well, they can go screw in that case. Should they continue to make the game less fun for me and others, well, we'll be very sad. ArenaNet, you don't want sad players, right?

And even during the end of the FPE weekend, when players started knowing what they were doing, there was plenty of discussion going on that was entirely helpful. Even simple informative statements are incredibly useful -- "Fighting 3 guys at Dragon Roost", or "Heading to Shipwreck" are great. Sure, not everyone is going to automatically take orders from random people, but that's not what it's about. GvG and HA are about fully organized groups. AB are not. I'm not going to listen to anyone trying to direct all 12 people any more than I listen to the random guy I joined with to make the group of four that ArenaNet bizzarrely demands.

Quote:

And instead of making fun of the whiners who don't want to put together a 4-player team, I'll just suggest that they to go play Fort Aspenwood (or Jade Quarry, if anybody decides to show up there some day).

Because calling people whiners isn't making fun of them?

For now, we'll just have to put up with each other, you people who demand organized groups of four and us people who demand disorganized groups of four. Probably for later, too. So let's all play nice. =)

Loch · May 18, 2006, 11:40 PM // 23:40

Quote:

Because calling people whiners isn't making fun of them?

Oops.

In any case, I was trying to say that I'm through discussing the "should it be random 12v12" topic, since the random proponents already have their place to go.

Quote:

I don't want to encourage people to play as a group of 12 any more than I want to encourage people to play as a group of 4.

I'm just curious, why exactly is playing as a group of four not a good idea? You think three is a better number? Six? Two? No set size at all?

In any case, I think four players per team is the perfect size due to a few reasons:
1) With only four players per team, getting three other players together is rarely a hassle. It's nothing at all like getting a Heroes' Ascent team together.
2) You can get a good amount of map coverage with three teams running around.
3) The team size is still large enough to allow for some build diversity.
4) Four is just a nice round number when it comes to a Guild Wars team size, especially since the arena format already uses it.

In my opinion, none of these points alone justifies the precise number of 'four', but the number just makes sense taking all things into consideration.

MrJingle · May 19, 2006, 03:46 AM // 03:46

" I'm just curious, why exactly is playing as a group of four not a good idea? You think three is a better number? Six? Two? No set size at all? "

Finding the one perfect number of players for a group in AB isnt the problem imo. I just think people would like the "option" of playing in groups of various sizes. If you use the PvP island as a reference there are roughly 3 different popular PvP styles to play like random arena, team arena, and heroes ascent while AB only has the one single way to play it. Is harm being done to the AB system if anet adds more AB gameplay modes with varied set team sizes?

...Sorry I'll figure out that quote option in my next post :P

Teddy Bear · May 19, 2006, 05:06 AM // 05:06

i think they need to add in faction for balthar if thsts how u evne spell his name :|

and then maybe more ppl would join and do battles

as for teamwork they need to go back to what it was where u could see all 12 of ur teammates

Kitty Soft · May 19, 2006, 06:47 AM // 06:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Teddy Bear

i think they need to add in faction for balthar if thsts how u evne spell his name :|

and then maybe more ppl would join and do battles

as for teamwork they need to go back to what it was where u could see all 12 of ur teammates

I'd like to see balthazar faction in alliance battles.

mattrung2 · May 19, 2006, 07:42 PM // 19:42

alliance battles are the most pointless edition anet has yet made to guildwars, if people want 4 man teams they go to team arenas, alliance battles are glorified team arenas - anything useful

cookiemonkie · May 20, 2006, 06:16 AM // 06:16

Yep, you could say the alliance battle system or the selling point of the game and title is a bit rushed, half assed, or not yet developed or we are still in beta. There isn't a single announcement or stat that tells you the the last xx match results were. Players don't need to to know the overall tally, just the last say 30 matches.... And has anyone seen the other 3 alliance maps and taken screen shots in battle with them? Do they really even exist, how do we even know the system works if we don't have a clue as to whats going on with it. It cycles from between two maps and everyon guestimates whats going on without any concrete information as to why. You can be on a team that wins 20 matches in a row and still have the lines move backwards. So how does this really work? Or does it *really* even exist?

Sientir · May 21, 2006, 05:28 AM // 05:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by cookiemonkie

Yep, you could say the alliance battle system or the selling point of the game and title is a bit rushed, half assed, or not yet developed or we are still in beta. There isn't a single announcement or stat that tells you the the last xx match results were. Players don't need to to know the overall tally, just the last say 30 matches.... And has anyone seen the other 3 alliance maps and taken screen shots in battle with them? Do they really even exist, how do we even know the system works if we don't have a clue as to whats going on with it. It cycles from between two maps and everyon guestimates whats going on without any concrete information as to why. You can be on a team that wins 20 matches in a row and still have the lines move backwards. So how does this really work? Or does it *really* even exist?

Yea, i'd like some info as to what the heck is going on with the current battles. I know that a large number of people just can't stand the wait for Alliance Battles to start. I know I hate the wait. I honestly don't know if this is from a) a lack of players, b) server limitations restricting the total number of matches, or c) an artificially created limit for no real reason. Either way, I would like to be able to split up in game. I mean, you know, go with the people I rezzed next to or whatever. But...I can't communicate with them...so...yea...

cookiemonkie · May 21, 2006, 06:15 PM // 18:15

Yes improvements are needed:

Server Wait time is rediculous. Either need more luxon players, or more games running at the same time.

the 4x4x4 party format is fine but you need to be able to see allies in your party list under the "allies" category. The alliance system it self needs to be able to auto match up people for alliance battles, so parties do not have to be formally formed. Random teams should be matched up against random teams, until they win say 5 in a row. Teams that do win should remain together for the next battle rather than reordered when entering the next battle.

On that note, the system itself needs to have alliance battle announcements of the past 20 or so matches.. and where the battle is taking place.