Curse

Ensign · Mar 28, 2006, 08:09 PM // 20:09

Taking away the random element reverts this format from something fun into a form of HA that's even harder to organize for. If fully organized teams of 12 are allowed, they become required. The most competitive players would still prefer GvG for all of the obvious reasons - casual players would be thrown into the same nightmare that HA is, with FOTM builds they have to conform to and all the snobbery that comes with it.

There is currently no good format to play if you just want to do PvP with a short contact list. 12v12 solves that. Why you would want to destroy that for what would be a glorified, less important version of GvG is beyond me.

Peace,
-CxE

wheel · Mar 28, 2006, 08:14 PM // 20:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ensign

Taking away the random element reverts this format from something fun into a form of HA that's even harder to organize for. If fully organized teams of 12 are allowed, they become required. The most competitive players would still prefer GvG for all of the obvious reasons - casual players would be thrown into the same nightmare that HA is, with FOTM builds they have to conform to and all the snobbery that comes with it.

There is currently no good format to play if you just want to do PvP with a short contact list. 12v12 solves that. Why you would want to destroy that for what would be a glorified, less important version of GvG is beyond me.

Peace,
-CxE

I don't think that forcing players to be in groups of 4 will make it less casual at all. If players really are casual about the whole PvP thing and too lazy to actually learn what's effective, they can stick to Random Arena for the most part. If they want to take the little effort to learn decent builds, tactics, and whatever else, just enough to join a team, they can do that. It's not a significant barrier to entry into 12v12 battles, but it's enough to make the casual player try harder to get into teams.

trevok · Mar 28, 2006, 08:18 PM // 20:18

I liked the dynamic of allowing you to enter in teams of 4 or less. The main problem I found was getting people to follow basic organization. It would be nice if you could re-arrange the player order in the list, and draw lines on the interface to indicate seperate groups. Often I'd go in with a group of 4 with a strategy of splitting the team into 3 groups, but then the 4 of us who made the team would be bunched together on the list, but with say one person below us, so we couldn't even easily say, ok top 4 go there, bottom 4 go there or whatever. Or even make it so that players within your radar range are a seperate colour, that would make being a monk much easier and more attractive since you'll know who's close enough to realistically try to heal rather than end up clicking through everyone only to find they're half way across the map and the person near you is dead by the time you click down to them.

I don't think doing either of that would be terribly complicated to implement in the least.

Also I like the idea of limiting pre-made teams to 4 becuase it will give good guilds the chance (or force them if they're uppity) to teach other players some decent strategy. You get better by playing with better players, if you seperate off 12v12 for guilds only, or make it so that you're always playing against good guild players, there's limited chance for teaching and learning. I think this could increase the overall skill of the playerbase.

art_ · Mar 28, 2006, 08:36 PM // 20:36

I'd like to be able to take 12 man organised teams into this, but I also see that significant advantages exist for leaving it as it is. :/

Ensign · Mar 29, 2006, 12:25 AM // 00:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by wheel

I don't think that forcing players to be in groups of 4 will make it less casual at all.

Oh I never addressed your point. Requiring people to be in a team of four if they don't want a 'your party is too small' message would be fine. The fact that the format has some organization and grouping is really key to making it a fun format. I wouldn't mind it if they put that feature in but I don't know how neccessary it is.

The only thing I'm specifically against is turning it into an organized 12v12 format where you pick your entire team. That would kill the format. I don't think it would neccessarily be a bad thing to have both the semi-random and the fully organized versions side by side - but my impression is that if the choice was available, the organized version would be a virtual wasteland.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trevok

It would be nice if you could re-arrange the player order in the list, and draw lines on the interface to indicate seperate groups.

While that would be nice, I think it'd solve most of the problem if the party list didn't get jumbled up upon joining. Put one 4 man team in order on 1-4, another on 5-8, and the last on 9-12, that would at least put people with the guys they're most likely going to be around and coordinating with.

Peace,
-CxE

Byron · Mar 29, 2006, 01:32 AM // 01:32

I say yes, if they first prove themselves by winning a set number of consecutive battles. If the team can get 12 people to stand still long enough to win 5 straight, then they deserve the honor of participating in a real battle. Until they have proven themselves, the battle for random groups should be just exhibition. I don't like the idea of my faction's well-being hinging on stoned 20-somethings at 6 AM.

Solberg the Exiled · Mar 29, 2006, 02:58 AM // 02:58

I think it's intresting how anet treated the alliance battles and I believe that they have the right idea. By making it so that 12 person parties can form and join, it'll just be like ascent, with all the new people not being able to find groups for 6 hours straight. But by making it completely random, it'll just be like RA, and that just gets boring fast.

This way, a guild group or an organized group can still join, but a player is not forced to wait forever to participate.

I believe it is anet's intention to introduce many new form of PvP and even some form of blend between PvP and PvE, but not alienate one group or the other.

Guillaume De Sonoma · Mar 29, 2006, 03:26 AM // 03:26

No, I don't think that guild groups of 12 should be allowed to enter together. I like the larger more chaotic battles. The randomness of these battles is pretty fun. Allowing 12 man guild groups just reminds me of a larger GvG or HA. This is like a larger Comp Arena with a purpose than just kill. I feel it is better for the game and getting more people out of Comp and into higher level PvP is a good thing.

Clusmas · Mar 29, 2006, 04:44 AM // 04:44

Perhaps disallow >4 from the same guild, but allow 12 man ALLIANCE teams. It is an alliance battle after all.

wheel · Mar 29, 2006, 05:30 AM // 05:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clusmas

Perhaps disallow >4 from the same guild, but allow 12 man ALLIANCE teams. It is an alliance battle after all.

A guild by itself is an alliance. An alliance is simply a container of different guilds, and can be as small as one guild. I wouldn't see the point of allowing 12 man alliance teams if it disallowed guild teams.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ensign

The only thing I'm specifically against is turning it into an organized 12v12 format where you pick your entire team. That would kill the format. I don't think it would neccessarily be a bad thing to have both the semi-random and the fully organized versions side by side - but my impression is that if the choice was available, the organized version would be a virtual wasteland.

I agree. Making it into 12v12 guild groups would make it very boring. It would be like completely random match up GvG. Neither side of the skill spectrum has fun.

tafy69 · Mar 29, 2006, 06:31 AM // 06:31

Yes if the organised is seperate from the random

Formina · Mar 29, 2006, 06:49 AM // 06:49

I voted no. The current 12vs12 is in my opinion, by far the funnest PvP mode i've participated in - the randomness is great fun, and there's still alot more strategy involved than just random arena.

I don't really want to spend hours forming together a group, and then losing to some high ranked guild in an Alliance Battle. :/

Also, I don't agree with forcing players to join groups in order to participate in Alliance Battles - it will turn out to be another HA where you'll be asked to emote or get kicked from the group.

RandomEngy · Mar 29, 2006, 06:57 AM // 06:57

So why not just make two game modes: one the way it currently is, and one allowing pre-arranged teams? I know it goes against what Arenanet has traditionally done, but it would be kind of interesting to see what would happen in a fully coordinated team, while still keeping the random aspect going for more casual games.

Though I could understand an argument against it that holds that it would splinter the game types too much.

glountz · Mar 29, 2006, 09:50 AM // 09:50

No. Vindexus is right.

M1h4iL · Mar 29, 2006, 12:15 PM // 12:15

If a guild is allowed to join as a group of 12 (not 4) then there will be a lot of wins for one side, and nasty builds will be brough it, imagine an iway team of 12.

minor · Mar 29, 2006, 12:55 PM // 12:55

I vote that they allow both as others have stated. We have RA and TA just allow the same thing here. Interesting thing on this thread is that people have pointed the ways to "beat" the random system and get in with their guildies anyway. i"ve been on the recieving end of some of those thrashings and it really makes you feel like ragequiting the min you see a 12 or 8 man guild group; while your team is just random junk. Do it both ways give people the choice.

JR · Mar 29, 2006, 01:04 PM // 13:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by minor

I vote that they allow both as others have stated. We have RA and TA just allow the same thing here. Interesting thing on this thread is that people have pointed the ways to "beat" the random system and get in with their guildies anyway. i"ve been on the recieving end of some of those thrashings and it really makes you feel like ragequiting the min you see a 12 or 8 man guild group; while your team is just random junk. Do it both ways give people the choice.

Indeed, possibly an RA/TA system could be a good answer? Get maybe 5 wins with your team (as the matches are longer) and you move on to fighting against organised teams. In the same way that RA teams move onto TA, and face more of a challenge from organised guild groups, it would work just as well in Alliance Battles I think.

SaintGreg · Mar 29, 2006, 02:34 PM // 14:34

Quote:

By making it so that 12 person parties can form and join, it'll just be like ascent, with all the new people not being able to find groups for 6 hours straight. But by making it completely random, it'll just be like RA, and that just gets boring fast.

12v12 is pretty much doomed from the start then. If they allow 12 people builds then either way, good people will play bad people since there is no way to rank them. Even in HA as you move along in the maps you are at least somewhat guaranteed to be facing competant teams. Not so in TA and this new format. And if they only ever allow random teams, then its still just a glorified arena fight.

minor · Mar 29, 2006, 05:13 PM // 17:13

I am 24 and in a decent guild, thank you very much, and Im not demanding it be easy.
My point is that we have a debate about having random vs made teams, however people have said theres ways to beat the random system. Surely you aren't saying that when my guild makes our 4 goes in and gets 8 randoms it s fair for us to fight a 12 man guild team that "haxx" and got in together? A 12 man guild group kills the the concept of a build that does not depend on your other 8. If its going to be random then make it random don't make it random for some and not all.

Daneish · Mar 29, 2006, 05:31 PM // 17:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Byron

I don't like the idea of my faction's well-being hinging on stoned 20-somethings at 6 AM.

You realize that that demographic makes up the majority of the top guilds in every region, right?