Curse

SnipiousMax · Apr 04, 2006, 04:46 AM // 04:46

I voted no.

I like the Random feel to it. And while I'm admittedly a casual PvP'er, I don't want to see another HA.

I wonder though, I've nothing against adding a 12v12 GvG option.

Worthington · Apr 04, 2006, 05:25 AM // 05:25

^^ me too. I'd love to see the Alliance Battles say the way they were in the FPE, but if people want another section in the Battle Isles where they can group up for some organized 12 on 12 action.. I don't see why not.

geminisaga · Apr 04, 2006, 05:28 AM // 05:28

what is guild alliance for then?

Linkusmax · Apr 04, 2006, 09:15 PM // 21:15

Heres how it works (The image has some unrelated stuff which are answers to my questions as well)

Loch · Apr 04, 2006, 11:52 PM // 23:52

Alliance Battles were terrible the way they worked in FPE. It was an excellent preview, and I enjoyed playing it with guildmates, but I would never take it seriously if it worked the exact same way at release. The large numbers of random players allowed Minion-masters and Echo-nukers actually seem good. Of course, any four-player team on Vent would absolutely slaughter the other side by simply capping the map. Mobility > bone things > echo'd nukes.

JiggyFly · Apr 05, 2006, 06:03 AM // 06:03

I was under the impression that 12v12 were only set-up the way they were during the Factions event, because you couldn't make guild alliances.

But when Factions actually came out it would be 2-3 guilds from an alliance forming a team. (3 groups of 4 from 3 different allianced guilds, or 2 groups of 6 from 2 different allianced guilds). Although it looks like from the Gaile chat above that it will no be only one alliance present per team.

In my opinion, having it stay random is pointless. I played during the event, and quite frankly the number of people who would leave during a fight was disgusting. Losing 124-37..1 person leaves..another follows. On average by the end of loss that wasn't within 10 or so I would usually end up with 7-8 people on my team. Sometimes it would be only 4 people left with the leading team being 300+ points away from victory. It basically turned into whoever gets a lead first wins, because so many people formt he losing team would leave if they didn't win from the get-go.

I say make-it allianced based. Its GuildWars not Solowars, its Online Game not a single player console game. Otherwise it's just going to turn into Randoms, with winning or losing not being based off strategy or checkpoint capping but how many flakes you go landed with and how many decide to run around with their solo build. Plus, since losing means you lose access to towns...I really don't like the idea of waiting 3 more hours to gain access to a town simply because there's a bunch of flakes out in 12v12 who leave if their team starts to lose.

Eet GnomeSmasher · Apr 05, 2006, 07:15 AM // 07:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by JiggyFly

I was under the impression that 12v12 were only set-up the way they were during the Factions event, because you couldn't make guild alliances.

But when Factions actually came out it would be 2-3 guilds from an alliance forming a team. (3 groups of 4 from 3 different allianced guilds, or 2 groups of 6 from 2 different allianced guilds). Although it looks like from the Gaile chat above that it will no be only one alliance present per team.

In my opinion, having it stay random is pointless. I played during the event, and quite frankly the number of people who would leave during a fight was disgusting. Losing 124-37..1 person leaves..another follows. On average by the end of loss that wasn't within 10 or so I would usually end up with 7-8 people on my team. Sometimes it would be only 4 people left with the leading team being 300+ points away from victory. It basically turned into whoever gets a lead first wins, because so many people formt he losing team would leave if they didn't win from the get-go.

I say make-it allianced based. Its GuildWars not Solowars, its Online Game not a single player console game. Otherwise it's just going to turn into Randoms, with winning or losing not being based off strategy or checkpoint capping but how many flakes you go landed with and how many decide to run around with their solo build. Plus, since losing means you lose access to towns...I really don't like the idea of waiting 3 more hours to gain access to a town simply because there's a bunch of flakes out in 12v12 who leave if their team starts to lose.

First of all, NEVER use the title of the game as an argument for anything. It means nothing, zip, zilch.... If the game was truly limited to it's name, there would be no PVE at all since that aspect has nothing to do with guilds. It's just really silly to use a name to make a point.

Second, how is it "Solo Wars" when the end result (even if everyone is random) is a 12 man team versus another 12 man team?

Third, the quitters, griefers and leavers are a problem yes, but there are other solutions other than restricting the 12v12 to Alliance only.

Fourth, Restricting it to Alliance only will shut out people who are in really small Alliances. 12 people is a lot to gather just to do what is supposed to be a "casual" battle of factions.

I say keep it to split 3 teams of 4 men. If they want to eliminate the single person entering by himself that's fine. But if they change it to a full 12 man group going in and limited only to a single Alliance, a chunk of people will miss out.

EDIT: Although restricting the 4 man team to a single Alliance wouldnt be horribly limiting...

LightningHell · Apr 05, 2006, 07:36 AM // 07:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by JiggyFly

-snip-

What is this about the name? If it were to be between guilds, there wouldn't be Alliances since it's only remotely tied to guilds. Hmm?

I'm going to vote No.

JiggyFly · Apr 06, 2006, 04:12 AM // 04:12

I was merely pointing out most online game such as Guild Wars were made with the idea that most players would play together, strategize together, etc. Thus, I don't see the point of playing a game like Guild Wars if you don't like forming organized groups with your fellow players.

And 3 allianced guild groups of 4, or 2 allianced guild groups of 6. I don't see how that isn't specifically targeted toward smaller guilds and allainces?

I guess I saw it as, making it more organized while having some downsides. (Adding the requirement to organize and form teams). I realize alot of people during the weekend didn't even own Guild Wars and so were a bit more "new" to everything especiall a large scale PvP. But during the weekend it was downright fustrating how often your team had people who would just run off by themselves only to get killed, or just simply leave at random, or if something wasn't going their way.

Not to mention the confliction of builds you got. (i.e. one group of 4 running eoe bomb, or a solo interupt Ranger bringing along Nature Renewal, or having 3 Minion Masters). Things like that made victories less dependent on how well your team played, but more dependent on whether or not the random players on your group conflcted with each other. And I don't see how those issue can be resolved without making each team allianced based. Because even if you make it so each person entering has to be part of PUG 4 man team at least, the 3 4-man teams can still have confllicting builds.

Sha Noran · Apr 06, 2006, 07:20 AM // 07:20

Yes, if...

12 man teams ONLY face other 12 man teams. As has been said, a 12 man co-ordinated, strategized alliance team on Vent/TS would DECIMATE a 12-man PuG team. Therefore, a conglomoration of teams/individuals, randomly assembled, faces an equal opponent. An Alliance team faces an opposing Alliance team. New button in the guild hall ftw?

-=Enter Guild Battle=-
-=Enter Alliance Battle=-

4runner · Apr 06, 2006, 11:07 PM // 23:07

I voted yes would like to see the 12v12, kinda like Cal-League for BF2, which is extremely fun especially with voice coms!!

Ristaron · Apr 07, 2006, 01:27 AM // 01:27

Yes if...

It's more like yes/no. I think they should increase party size to 6 and have guild groups able to enter from their hall. Four limits the strategy too much, 6 is half the team, enough to hold one or two places on the map even if the other half is composed of wannabe-Napolean assbags who all hate their team because they're not getting listened to.

studentochaos · Apr 07, 2006, 07:59 AM // 07:59

I think the alliance battle have been designed to get guilds that can't field a "regular 8" into pvp. If you have ten scrub guilds form together and agree they want to be an alliance, then as long as any three guilds can field 4 players an alliance battle can be played. Additionally, it is even easier then that considering you can guest in others. Using the alliance chat function one guild could keep saying "Knights of the Whatever want to Alliance battle, LF two other guild teams to join." More so, since you would teleport to the separate area to form up, it is possible that that instance could be limited to members of the same alliance. (I am making a leap in faith that the groups are limited to alliance, but that just seems like a better format than 3 random groups of 4).

Then you ask, why would 12 random carebears want to fight the Te/Evil/TEvl super team?? Because you get faction points equal to kills even when you lose and killing NPCs get you those points. Since you need faction to buy amber to craft 15k armor it is likely that lots of non-serious pvp players would not be too intimidated to play even if they knew they would lose almost every time.

If you don't have any guild or have a small guild and want larger format PvP, then do competitive missions. 8 random players and infinite repeatability means you can "farm" faction there like it was CA.

Say you HATE pvp but want to craft the 15k armor, either buy the amber or do patrol missions in PvE for faction points.

As I see it, Anet is trying to make options for everyone. The alliance battle is an attempt to mix scrubs and ladder players. Scrubs still get points and can forever feel good the one time they dropped Last of Master (12 scrub zerg rush ftw) and the ladder players could farm the 12 v 12 battles for faction and thus win territory (if they cared). Even if they don't limit the 12 v 12 to alliance only, the same points about mixing ladder players and scrubs applies.

Mezmo · Apr 07, 2006, 04:09 PM // 16:09

I think they should do this kinda of like how they have arenas now. Make a Random alliance area and make a group allinace area. It would defenetly be more fun this way since there would be a moer competitve palce to go to and form up groups of twelve and a place for peopel that can't seem to get into those groups or simply don't want to waste their time trying to get into those groups.

lishi · Apr 08, 2006, 09:07 PM // 21:07

i suggest to remove the randomness and implement some other kind of game for the people who arent so "hardcore"

Sha Noran · Apr 09, 2006, 12:05 AM // 00:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by lishi

i suggest to remove the randomness and implement some other kind of game for the people who arent so "hardcore"

Shoots and Ladders ftw?

kazz · Apr 10, 2006, 08:55 PM // 20:55

I think there should be two different areas, very similar to Team arenas vs random arenas. In one, you would have your team of 12, and in the other, you would have the groups of 4. This would allow high guilds or friends to make competitive teams, while still giving the newer or uncoordinated teams a chance not to get completely rolled in 5 minutes.

Edit: Doh someone had same idea before me...guess i should read through the whole thing before posting :P

Cassie McKnight · Apr 12, 2006, 07:56 PM // 19:56

No.
A little chaos is good, a real warrior should be able to cope with some chaos, adapt, be creative, less predictable, less boring, less part of a built machine and more of a thinking, instinctive creature.
Instead of following a simple AI script like you are a simple computer.
Chaos is good!

Jared The Faithfull · Apr 13, 2006, 09:44 AM // 09:44

Alliance battles restrict builds like IWAY and Ranger Spike if you are worrrying about those "leet" builds totally rolling you over. Alliance battles are far to tactical to stick together, which makes a team of 4 fun (capping control points). Yet if the other 8 don't cooperate there's nothing you can do. I had alot of fun sneaking behind the enemy lines ( who were ganking each other around the saltspray roost) and capping their control points. Sometimes i ran off on my own, sometimes a cool-headed teamate joined me. But i got very frustrated at the other players which didint want to go 4-4-4, or i had 5 minion masters on my team, or the warrior who ran off to cap the necromancer altar.. I think a organized group would be far more satisfactory. I say 'yes'.

zling · Apr 15, 2006, 12:16 AM // 00:16

I think that the whole point of these "alliances" in the first place are small tight groups merging together into a larger looser group. in our case, guilds join forces to become an alliance...
thus in alliance battles I think that the ONLY option should be 3 teams of 4 when each time comes from a DIFFERENT guild in THAT alliance.
so basically your guild needs to join an alliance before being able to participate in alliance battles. and thus there is no room for randoms nor singles at all...