Curse

Daneish · Mar 29, 2006, 05:37 PM // 17:37

I voted "No." The argument that players in noncompetitive guilds will adapt to the level of play demonstrated by 12-man guild squads holds no water. If you want entirely guild-based pvp, GvG.

Four is a nice limit for coordinated teams in Alliance Battles. Big enough to make a difference, small enough to not be -the- difference.

lyra_song · Mar 29, 2006, 06:03 PM // 18:03

I voted no.

My guild did the FvF very heavily over the weekend. We love the format. We made our squads of 4 and had lots and lots of fun (since quite a few of us are UT2004 fans, it translates very well).

I think what will happen ultimately to this format is EVERY group of 4 will become a crack team and know exactly what they should be doing.

I really really like this format. It lets you be organized and plan tactically, but still have to adopt your skills because of the randomness of who your other teammates might be.

BTW: You should have enough time before the battle begins to get everyone on the same TS/Vent server or at least establish what the split will be.

RandomEngy · Mar 30, 2006, 12:02 AM // 00:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by lyra_song

BTW: You should have enough time before the battle begins to get everyone on the same TS/Vent server or at least establish what the split will be.

I highly doubt that. This is what you'd have to do every game:
agree who will run the TS/Vent server, give out the IP, port and room name, and possibly a password, and get everyone to log on. So you might get a portion of the people who do have TS/Vent installed and a mic that feel like going through that for just one game. And if they don't pay attention to the chat, of course they won't be on.

You're welcome to try it but I'd be surprised if you got as many as 2 people per game to do it.

Linkusmax · Mar 30, 2006, 12:12 AM // 00:12

Edit: This is an exact copy of my post from another thread but it has relevance.

You seem to ignore the fact that Arenanets descriptions of Alliance battles say that who you can play with will be confined to your alliance.

You also seem to ignore the fact that Alliances are called Alliances and Factions are called factions and that this is an alliance battle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arena Net

On the other hand, you might want to bring in your existing PvP characters, or create new ones, to take part in PvP on the Battle Isles. Or you can bring your roleplaying characters to join an alliance battle in Cantha. For alliance battles during the event, your guild will be in its own individual alliance. In the future, naturally your guild will want to ally with others within your faction to create a powerful entity within Cantha. By speaking to your faction ambassador in your capital city, either House zu Heltzer or Cavalon, you can join the battle to help your faction gain control of outposts. The combat is 12 versus 12 consisting of 3 groups of 4 players each playing against one another either collectively or as individual battle squads. The world map will visibly change as alliances conquer more of Cantha with their victories and the winners will be recognized within the game.

The bolded areas basically say that it was different for the FPE and that it will be ALLIANCES who win victorys not factions, simple logic dictates that this means you will play with alliance members and will thus be rather easily able to assemble into groups of four and coordinate your entry to get a full team of 12.

Daneish · Mar 30, 2006, 01:07 AM // 01:07

I think you're reading something that's not there. What they've said, there, is that during the FPE, guilds were unable to ally with each other. An individual guild counts as an alliance, and when the game goes live, 2-10 allied guilds will count as an alliance. The point of alliances is to have a wealth of people contributing to the prestige of the guilds involved. Twenty people working under one banner earns more prestige than ten under two.

Your alliance of guilds donates Faction to your Kurzick or Luxon faction, which earns the alliance prestige. That's as far as ANet's taken it, with anything they've said. There's been nothing about "You can only play with 'x' people."

Linkusmax · Mar 30, 2006, 01:46 AM // 01:46

Daneish,that section of text was specifically about Alliance battles only.

Kariston The Swift · Mar 30, 2006, 01:53 AM // 01:53

I personally think an organized team of 12 would ruin the Alliance battles for anyone who isn't a hardcore pvper. This would ruin the easiest ways to get faction for your alliance in my opinion which would make alot of people just give up the game all together. I personally don't want to see GLF R3/6/9++ there.

Linkusmax · Mar 30, 2006, 02:40 AM // 02:40

Why would they be doing that? FFS its not HA so playing it has nothing to do with rank.

Aside from that its pretty simple to see Anet has basically said it will be organisable but within your alliance teams of 4 get randomly put together (since your alliance isn't everyone it wont be hard to get just your team in.

Vindexus · Mar 30, 2006, 03:22 AM // 03:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Linkusmax

Why would they be doing that? FFS its not HA so playing it has nothing to do with rank.

People do it in Team Arena all the time, so I can see it happening in FvF.

Guillaume De Sonoma · Mar 30, 2006, 03:28 AM // 03:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vindexus

People do it in Team Arena all the time, so I can see it happening in FvF.

I don't see it as much in TA, but yeah seeing it is laugable. I mean it's team arenas.

zoozoc · Mar 30, 2006, 04:57 AM // 04:57

I voted no, simply for the reson that if it was orgainized 12v12, you would have to do that in order to be competative, and alliance battles are not suppose to be serious like gvg. It would become the new hoh except wuold take even longer to form a team, and would totally shun the casual player. So my vote is a very fimr no, a good idea, but you already have gvg and hoh for competative, organized pvp.

ames · Mar 30, 2006, 05:16 AM // 05:16

just press enter all at the same time

art_ · Mar 30, 2006, 10:34 AM // 10:34

^ lol

And yeah that works like 4 times out of 5.

Laibeus Lord · Mar 30, 2006, 11:06 AM // 11:06

No, because it will become a clone of the Tyrian PvP Arenas.
Also, to avoid the 'easy' domination of one faction.

Oh, if no one noticed, the faction borderline's cross-region...

asdar · Mar 30, 2006, 03:21 PM // 15:21

I don't see anything wrong with having both and it solves most problems for everyone.

I'd like to have this open for Guilds because it is a much more strategic battle, and I'd like the variety. HA is another Guild style for fun, let this be a third.

I like the way they had it set up for the free weekend too much to not want that as well. I like the 4 man groups so you can ensure you have a fairly even distribution of key class, like monks in the build, mixed with the randomness of what the other two teams will bring.

I don't see any problems with having both ways, especially with the instanced system GW has and I think it'd make most everyone happy so I can't see why they wouldn't do that.

Neo-LD · Apr 04, 2006, 02:59 AM // 02:59

I played many alliance battles during the FPE and echo many of the feelings shared by JR. It was nice, and alot of fun, and it has some greater purpose (territory). Beating down the opposing team is fun, especially when they endlessly respawn to get re-ownt. However, by saturday evening I really, really couldnt stand the random teammmates. Indeed, the randos were, as JR described, "running around like headless chickens" (I think I used the same phrase when I was complaining duing the FPE to my friends) It felt that really, no matter how good or bad you played, the outcome was kinda whimsical and depended entirely on how many nubs get concentrated into the same group. Thats great incentive for people to form groups and fight for territory.

I understand that if orgainzed 12v12 is allowed, it will become standard. However, I see no reason why the current random territory war system could not be preserved, while also implementing a seperate competitive version with balanced maps and the ability to enter with a full team. Random 12v12 is still fun and still practicable. Organized 12v12 will develop a totally different metagame than anywhere else due to increased party size and different mission objectives.

My personal take on organized alliance battles is that they should be fought by, well, alliances. Still 3 teams of 4, but each team representing a different guild from the same alliance. If you think about it, guilds dont find it hard to muster 4 people... the alliance could play fairly often compared to how often guilds can gvg. There could/should even be an alliance ladder. Disallowing/discouraging one guild from trying to 12v12 alone would ease the pressure created to get 12 people online in the first place: if the expectation is that you will play with your allied guilds.

GvG would remain the king of Guild Wars pvp. But Alliance battles need to be allowed to grow beyond 12v12 random arena.

icemonkey · Apr 04, 2006, 03:10 AM // 03:10

people would just all get on the same vent from different guilds. I know during hte FPE my future alliance guilds all hopped on the same vent, had about 4 teams all hit enter at the same time and switched channels based on who we got matched with. So if the teams have to be in alliance it will still be 12v12, and that could be a mess

Plazma Knight · Apr 04, 2006, 03:10 AM // 03:10

elite players ALERT!!!

Eet GnomeSmasher · Apr 04, 2006, 03:11 AM // 03:11

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 agree with Ensign. Why make this into another GvG or HOH? Not that those formats are bad but those are already there. The random element is what's lacking in a larger format right now, so I dont know why people want to get rid of it.

Besides, I think some of you are taking it far too seriously if all you want to do is win with an organized planned out 12 man group. Like I said before, if you want serious play then go GvG.

Loch · Apr 04, 2006, 03:46 AM // 03:46

I voted no.

I thought the maximum built-party size of 4 synergized extremely well with the format. The most successful teams I played on acted as separate squads, not as one huge mob. The huge map and the non-combat objective favored those who split up and controlled every point, even though most players rushed for the Saltspray cap right in the middle. A single organized party of 4 could dominate by aggressively capturing.

Honestly, I don't think having a built team of 12 would make this mode any better (although forcing them to assemble a team of 4 would help weed out the uncommitted). If anything, I think this mode needs to encourage teams to act as 3 squads of 4 even further. It would be better than what it was during the FPE - echo-nukers and minion-masters thinking they were good because they fought 12v12, when the real key to winning was mobility.