PDA

View Full Version : Should Heros Ascent be kept as 6v6?



DreamWind
04-09-2006, 04:20
I've been thinking about this, and I believe that Heros Ascent should stay 6v6 instead of going back to 8v8. Here are some reasons why:

-It is a welcome change that most people I know are enjoying
-It is easier to find teams and play when you only need 6 players instead of 8
-Leaving it 6v6 will give players 3 options, 4v4 (TA), 6v6 (HA), and 8v8 (GvG)

Now of course there are reasons against it. Some traditionalists will want it to stay 8v8. But I am putting a poll up just to see public opinion on it, and maybe Anet will take a look. I personally think 6v6 is brilliant, and it solves a major problem GW had with NEEDING 8 players to play seriously. My guild hasn't had this much fun in ages playing Guild Wars 6v6.

Ju Smurph
04-09-2006, 04:24
-Leaving it 6v6 will give players 3 options, 4v4 (TA), 6v6 (HA), and 8v8 (GvG) i like this part at least... wheter it is worth it im not phased on.

Seyfert
04-09-2006, 04:27
you know, i kind of like the idea, it'll probably anger more people than not but personally i really like it

halfthought
04-09-2006, 04:33
the poll prety small right now, so I dunno the public oppinion, but maybe introducing a NEW arena? but dunno, to much work for anet, there ardy busy with nitefall :P

nightrunner
04-09-2006, 04:33
No. It does make it more newcomer freindly, true, but it also takes a lot of the strategy out of the game.

DreamWind
04-09-2006, 04:37
I should also add that HA has never been more popular. American districts used to be dead at many times but now American and International districts are jam packed.

Of course, this is due a lot to the double fame so I didn't mention it. I still believe a lot of people are loving 6v6 though and I'd like to hear more input.

Tucks
04-09-2006, 04:50
NO! Make a new arena, sure, just dont **** around with HA as it is. Making a new 6v6 arena makes everyone happy.

Alot of the more experienced players i know hate this, while new/nubby players like it, and there are more nubby players.

Also, shouldn't this thread be in the PvP section?

DreamWind
04-09-2006, 05:01
Alot of the more experienced players i know hate this, while new/nubby players like it, and there are more nubby players.

Also, shouldn't this thread be in the PvP section?

Hmm weird a lot of the exp players I know think its great. They actually like HA now where they didn't before. =p

Also I posted it here instead of pvp section because I think its a game discussion everybody should look at.

Tsukasa Kusanagi
04-09-2006, 05:15
NO! Make a new arena, sure, just dont **** around with HA as it is. Making a new 6v6 arena makes everyone happy.

Alot of the more experienced players i know hate this, while new/nubby players like it, and there are more nubby players.

Also, shouldn't this thread be in the PvP section?
Making another arena would be spreading it a bit thin, wouldn't it? I like the 6v6 a lot.

Master Knightfall
04-09-2006, 05:39
WHat it does is speed up the matches since it's not so easy to bring along 3 monks in a 6 person team and be very powerful. On the other hand it could slow them down for this very same reason if teams did bring 3 monks. It's a meh at best. Personally I'd like to see a HOH with 3 four person groups joined randomly like Alliance Battles are now. More opportunity for "everyone" to gain rank and not limited to just the elitists and their copycat must have this build routine that HA has set itself into.

David Holtzman
04-09-2006, 07:06
Definitely not. It really removes a great deal of the strategy from the game. It's kinda cute as a weekend event, but in the long run I really think it would hurt the game.

fallot
04-09-2006, 07:38
I don't know. It's nice not seeing any ****ing holding builds, but the game is kind of stagnating. I have minimal HA experience so my view may not be very accurate though.

CÚrilia
04-09-2006, 07:41
Moved to Heroe's Ascent forum...

DreamWind
04-09-2006, 07:52
Meh...now its moved into a section where a fraction of people are going to see it and probably no anet people. GG. =/

Also, David I'd like to hear your thoughts on how it takes the strategy out? And even if it does (which I'm not convinced as of yet), does that outweigh the increased ease of getting teams together in the long run?

ryivan
04-09-2006, 07:55
I like it, but i guess all the cookie cutters would stop playing... and there are ALOT of cookie cutters, your best bet? Have a 6 on 6 HA and a 8 on 8 HA that both differ in there own ways but keep alot of similiarities

fallot
04-09-2006, 08:20
Using the term "cookie-cutter" usually means an instant loss in credibility, just an FYI.

Mr Dbest
04-09-2006, 08:39
No....HA was and is meant to be for advanced PvP play (that and Gvg) and lessening the number of players drastically reduces the challenge of the arena, as well as limiting the number and use of strategies involved....As someone mentioned, it may look great atm, but in the long run, the change isn't worth it....But ANet should take note of this event becuase of the fact that HA needs to be drastically changed in order to increase it's popularity, as is evident by the number of people who have swarmed HA compared to its previous numbers before the Ha change...Changing maps, etc. might be a good way of getting ppl to rejoin the 8v8 HA scene after event is over....And btw, i do believe they will make a seperate arena...=]

Gorani
04-09-2006, 09:51
I never did HA before, because I could not get in any groups (I did not want to play IWAY, VIMtrappers etc.).
Now, with only 6 people needed for a team, it was easier to form a guild/alliance team and actually get inside and play.

Many guildies had fun and earned a few fame.
So yes, keep it at six. It opened up new chances.

Patccmoi
04-09-2006, 09:59
I expect a different arena too.

I don't believe HA should change to 6v6 permanently, but i'll say personally i really like it more. More fast paced, much less holding builds that take forever to fight and sometimes just stall when you end up with something like holding build vs holding build...

I don't think the amount of builds you can run truly go down a lot. Ofc in 2 days people will get the first ones they think of (traditional builds that are similar to what was run in HA, like dual smite, NR/Tranq, Vimway, etc.), but others are very popular. For example we run a build with 5 Flesh Golems Necro and got very good success out of it, beating many very good guilds with it (EvIL/WM/Cert, some rank 10-12 teams, etc., all of which were running some of the more traditional builds like ranger pressure with NR/Tranq and a thumper, smite, etc.). I'm not sure at all if the build can be adapted to 8v8 (we'll try after the event, but the more solid backline might wreck it), and it's not possible with 4v4, so in a sense it's an example of a new type of build that can potentially be successful in 6v6 but nowhere else.

I don't think the maps of HA atm are adapted to 6v6 at all though. A 6v6 arena would need map designed for it, and game types designed for it (so like an Altar Map as ultimate game might be bad when it's so hard to actually hold with 6 players).

So i don't want HA to be changed permanently (even though that might mean i won't go back in again for a long while after event because i hate the stall metagame there) but i hope they'll make something out of that 6v6, which should be expected if they bothered to test it like that.

DarkY
04-09-2006, 10:01
after about 8 months being rank 3 and never did PvP again (i think the current iway build wasnt invented back then) i finally had fun again.

Making partys was easy (i dont care about someone rank). Just make fun, you win some and lose some. 100+ fame in a day isnt bad :)

So i like 6vs6.
Also alot of guild in the HA, we lost vs nr1guild, won vs nr 23 guild...


Today i hope to get rank4

Sci
04-09-2006, 10:29
The double-teaming in certain maps is awful; 8 vs 16 is more fair than 6 vs 12. I would have liked 6v6 and double fame to have taken place on different weekends, as now it is hard to distinguish fame farmers from people who play for enjoyment. Facing ViMway after ViMway makes it hard to support this format. Although, I will miss the Flesh Golems......

foghorn leghorn
04-09-2006, 10:43
with 6v6 you dont have alot of space to add a personal touch, bcs you need certain skills to counter other builds/maps, so i say no

Darkstar The Legend
04-09-2006, 12:06
with 6v6 you dont have alot of space to add a personal touch, bcs you need certain skills to counter other builds/maps, so i say no

Surely that is a good thing, adding a new degree of tactics, it means you have to try and plan ahead, think what counters will be most important and what ones it might be safe to leave behind, (yes its a risk you might meet something you can't counter, but surely that just adds to the fun).

As to those saying that 6v6 will near end the need for tactics in HA, what a load of total crap that is. first off most teams use no damn tactics anyway, about 90% of all the teams i have fought have been Vimway, Rspike, Bloodspike etc. which all have their own tactics anyway.

scamPOR
04-09-2006, 12:20
HA is popular due to double fame not cause its 6v6. Tombs ppl will still play 6v6 but a lot of tombs is really watered down. Granted iway and all that crap was getting old, but this is not the way to fix that.

Laura Fantus
04-09-2006, 12:41
I would like to see 6v6 PvP in GW, but not in HA. HA should stay the large scale, strategic combat type it was before, not a slightly enhanced version of Team Arenas. 6v6 dramatically reduces the ability to produce orignal and out-of-the ordinary builds since a team of 6 obviously has not the same room for variation a 8 man team has. So, please no watering down of HA, but offer a new type of 6v6 arena for those players who like that form of combat.

KelvinC
04-09-2006, 13:03
WHat it does is speed up the matches since it's not so easy to bring along 3 monks in a 6 person team and be very powerful. On the other hand it could slow them down for this very same reason if teams did bring 3 monks. It's a meh at best. Personally I'd like to see a HOH with 3 four person groups joined randomly like Alliance Battles are now. More opportunity for "everyone" to gain rank and not limited to just the elitists and their copycat must have this build routine that HA has set itself into.

What happens to three teams is a dead lock. For example no team would want to initiate a fight because the first 2 teams who fight will could be ambushed by the third team.

Almas Darksoul
04-09-2006, 16:05
I'd like to point something out first, and that is that IN NO WAY is HA comparable to GvG in the playstyles used. GvG is about thinking, playing strategically and outsmarting your opponent as well as outskilling them. Success in HA is more linked to quick reactions, experience and knowledge. Its simply not fair to say that if people want to 8v8 they can go play GvG, because GvG is often way slower (and thus to some, more dull), while HA gives rapid action.

Many of the techniques used in HA have been destroyed by making it into a 6v6 tournament. Although fights usually occur quickly in 8v8 HA, now they go too quickly. I haven't seen a single fight that lasted more than about 8 minutes, and most end before even 5. Strategies such as when to run and how to best block an enemy have been replaced by "just kill them then run some relics".

In the halls and courtyard maps, noone is even attempting to claim altars until there is less than a minute and a half or so remaining. In about 10 hall replays I've seen and 4-5 hall matches i've participated in, almost all the time the holding team stood no chance unless the attacking teams were morons.

I don't mean to be offensive to anyone who is voting yes on this, but I seriously doubt that you've played much on the higher maps during this event. 6v6 fighting is fun, yes, but it ruins the few strategical elements that HA posseses, turning tactical maps into gankfests. I'll happily agree to and play at a 6v6 arena, but not HA. The maps there simply do not work with 6v6 combat.

slakt
04-09-2006, 16:21
I say no for the same reasons as other no-voters have already posted. It limits your strategic options, and I can't really see any positive aspects in 6vs6 when it comes gameplay.

Buddah
04-09-2006, 16:56
Alot of the more experienced players i know hate this, while new/nubby players like it, and there are more nubby players.
In truth son, your speaking for a lot of people who you have no business speaking for. I've been around since the E3 for Everyone and like the idea behind the 6vs6.


Definitely not. It really removes a great deal of the strategy from the game. It's kinda cute as a weekend event, but in the long run I really think it would hurt the game.You got left behind when iA went to HA I take it. :rolleyes:

What 6vs6 really did is make people really look at their 8 skills in each bar and decide which do they need. Less utility, more streamlined for the kill or for defense.



I don't think the maps of HA atm are adapted to 6v6 at all though. A 6v6 arena would need map designed for it, and game types designed for it (so like an Altar Map as ultimate game might be bad when it's so hard to actually hold with 6 players).
Altar maps aren't so great for 8vs8 endgame either. Any predictable endgame will be built around for holding.


6vs6 fills a long empty nitch. Not every guild can field 8 constantly, neither do they want to guest or look for pugs. It gives them their playing field.

Mr Dbest
04-09-2006, 17:16
I'd like to point something out first, and that is that IN NO WAY is HA comparable to GvG in the playstyles used. GvG is about thinking, playing strategically and outsmarting your opponent as well as outskilling them. Success in HA is more linked to quick reactions, experience and knowledge. Its simply not fair to say that if people want to 8v8 they can go play GvG, because GvG is often way slower (and thus to some, more dull), while HA gives rapid action.

Not sure if this comment is aimed at me, but since im the only one who even said GvG in their comment, i'll take it as so....I said that HA and GvG were both forms of advanced Pvp in GW, and in that way they are comparable....Playstyles and such was never brought in, so i guess that was your own comment to the forum....Anyways, Almas, i'd say you got it for the most part right, except for the fact that Gvg also requires experience and knowledge (as does most forms of PvP), and that even though HA, for the most part, is quick, when (like Pat or someone said) you get into a match with 2 holding builds fighting each other, it gets quite lengthy... =]

vefy
04-09-2006, 17:59
i hate 6v6!! its like team arenas... if it stays like this il probably quit gw, i dont like the pve...so...

a lot of the players i know, are playing more pve this weekend than usual, because although its double fame, they hate the 6v6 ^^

miscellaneous player
04-09-2006, 18:05
8v8 and normal fame was MUCH better.

nightrunner
04-09-2006, 18:05
The problem about only having 6 players is that you can't pack all the utility skills that you would be able to bring if you had 8 players. Say, if you're playing dual smite, you may not have the room to bring corpse control. So when you meet a team with Profane, you're toast, even if your team is more experienced and organized than the other team's. Basically, the focus shifts to build rather than strategy and teamwork, it becomes too rock-paper-scissors.

I'm all for making the transition from PvE/RA to serious PvP easier, but dumbing down the upper tier PvP arenas is not the solution. Add a new arena, or better yet, modify TA.

Nesha
04-09-2006, 18:18
Can I say, I prefer 8 v 8 because the 16 players make exciting and fun, it is different from team arena because of extra players. I played HA for 11 months now and still enjoy it.

I mainly play monk in HA and the difference between monking in HA and team arena is that you have to beat the whole team in HA and not just kill the monks, to win. If anyone has tried monking in 6v6 they will have noticed it has become like team arena in that, the monks become the main targets, like team arena, this makes it not as fun.

Also this weekend I have hardly been able to play with my guild team, because they were full, with 6 v 6. My main reason for belong to a guild is to play with a regular team. I really don't find pugging very fun, but if it goes to 6 v 6 I will be forced to pug most the time, because my guild team will be full. So what is the point of me belonging to a guild I can't play with??

I would also like to say, those people who have only tried pvp in HA for the first time this weekend, should try 8 v 8 before they say that 6 v 6 is better. I am have played 8 v 8 long enough to say which I prefer, from an informed position.

In my opinion, why change one of the fun things about this game and make it less fun ??

jimmy bondage
04-09-2006, 18:19
6v6 and double fame is rubbish.... 8v8 all the way:angry:

Frome Reaper
04-09-2006, 19:29
The problem about only having 6 players is that you can't pack all the utility skills that you would be able to bring if you had 8 players. Say, if you're playing dual smite, you may not have the room to bring corpse control. So when you meet a team with Profane, you're toast, even if your team is more experienced and organized than the other team's. Basically, the focus shifts to build rather than strategy and teamwork, it becomes too rock-paper-scissors.


I don't see the problem with this. Profane is a direct counter to dual smite. So are things like Nature's and tranquility. If your team is more experienced and organized than the other team then you'd find a way to get around your weaknesses and make your build stronger as a whole. But if you don't want to get rolled simply because you didn't have room for one character then you shouldn't play builds that get countered so easily. I actually prefer it this way because most builds that would just tear through teams will need more strat adjustments while you're playing.

zweistein
04-09-2006, 19:45
im all for keeping 6vs.6

positives:

* one year after i gave up on pvp, i finally had fun (with exception of preview event alliance battles and jade quarry event.)

* easy group forming. both as LFGer and GLFer. groups falling apart before even starting are nonexistant.

* you personal skills matters more. while before inept player was able to get ride to halls, now you need every guy in later maps.

* diversive builds. freaky builds that actually work. i have faced: iway, wimway, iway with boonprots instead of oders. touchways (even in 1st altar map), starburtsers (warying between suicial 'who need monks, were 6 eles' and actually sane spike), ancestors rage spike (nasty oponents), doom spike, ranger spike, barrageway spike, blood spike, N/A chillbains/signet of agony spike, coultess variationg on ballanced, tons or variations of smite. and even minion factories. (ok, most were flawessed.)

* fast play thats actually fun. you could meet anything anywhere.

* no rank discrimination. you were able to form great teams without rank. and, then you will beat /wolf or /tiger iways.

* fact that most common fame farming groups (smiters) were so diverse added lots of fun. no more pedantic 'bring skill X'. you got decent people together, synced builds that need syncing and you would end up with non-cookie team that has established build (which is kinda weird)

seen smiters with tainted warders, with w/es instead thumpers, with only one smiter and starburst ele, with only one healing monk, with trapper, with choker, with smited toucher (ok, that was not wery succesfull)

in fact, they seemed a lot like ballanced teams.

* it devaluated rank and strenghtened it at same time. yes, its positive. anyone caring about having rank 3 had good opportunity to gain it.

* destruction of cookies. wimway, iway, etc simply cant survive in 6 vs 6, while weird build can net some fame, its not reliable enough.

* weaking of every spike. the fact that boon can stop spike with reversal in theese conditions ...

* unviability of holding builds. now you actually have to fight to keep your halls.

* and, its was fun

nightrunner
04-09-2006, 20:01
I don't see the problem with this. Profane is a direct counter to dual smite. So are things like Nature's and tranquility. If your team is more experienced and organized than the other team then you'd find a way to get around your weaknesses and make your build stronger as a whole. But if you don't want to get rolled simply because you didn't have room for one character then you shouldn't play builds that get countered so easily. I actually prefer it this way because most builds that would just tear through teams will need more strat adjustments while you're playing.

That's true - I picked a build with an obvious weakness, to make it more obvious. But what about a 'balanced' build? It's balanced because it has no paticular weaknesses, and because it has the ability to counter pretty much everything to a certain extent. But if you take 16 skills out of that build, how do you choose what to lose? If you take out an Extinguish, you'll be weak vs ViM. If you take out the infuser, it's going to be tough to counter a spike. The lack of enough build counters means that strategy alone is not enough to earn your team a win. If my team is more experienced than the IWAY team we're facing, then we should probably beat them. But if we're running E-Denial and we don't have a ton of warrior hate, we're going to have problems. Even if we outmaneuver them, kill their spirits, drain their trappers, whatever, we're still going to take a lot of damage from their warriors.

That's not to say having 8 players will allow E-Denial team counter an IWAY team perfectly - that's obvious. The E-Denial team will always be at a disadvantage, buildwise. But what it may do is allow the E-Denial team to bring a Warder, or a Blackout, or at least something that they can use against them. If my toolbox is missing a saw, and I need to cut something, my boxcutter is better than nothing. But if all I've got is a hammer, then it doesn't matter how good I am, I'm not going to be able to do anything.

David Holtzman
04-09-2006, 20:08
Also, David I'd like to hear your thoughts on how it takes the strategy out?

GW is a game designed and balanced around the 8man team concept. It simply is not possible to take the skills you need to effect the mechanisms of the HA maps with only 6. Part of the reason so many of the popular builds are on an increase (IWAY, ViM, etc) is because it is no longer possible to take the skills needed to counter them. This is, in general, true in every field. Altar matches are often luck based, but in 6man teams people simply don't have the skills to effectively win altars. The number of moves is simply too limiting in this format for serious strategy to be a part of the game. It comes down too often to build choice, which is an awfully silly way to run things.


And even if it does (which I'm not convinced as of yet), does that outweigh the increased ease of getting teams together in the long run?

Absolutely. We have an arena for easy teams: random arenas. We have the next step up: AB or TA. HA is supposed to be an arena for advanced play that is less guild centered than GvG.

************************************************** ********


You got left behind when iA went to HA I take it.

Nah, we're playing the event. Double fame is awfully nice for our members going for their r12s. But it's not something we want to stick around. Probably mostly keep us out of tombs if it did, to be honest.


What 6vs6 really did is make people really look at their 8 skills in each bar and decide which do they need. Less utility, more streamlined for the kill or for defense.

Er... yeah? That's sorta the problem. Lack of utility means an increase in luck matches. If I want luck I'll play dice.

Tucks
04-09-2006, 20:18
* one year after i gave up on pvp, i finally had fun (with exception of preview event alliance battles and jade quarry event.)

One year after i began HA it has been the most unenjoyable weekend in it.


* easy group forming. both as LFGer and GLFer. groups falling apart before even starting are nonexistant.
This is only because alot of people are playing, because 6v6 is a limited novelty.


* you personal skills matters more. while before inept player was able to get ride to halls, now you need every guy in later maps.

One player has always been able to ruin a team in 8v8. You said yourself you havent played much PvP, so how do you know individual player skill makes a different amount of impact?


* diversive builds. freaky builds that actually work. i have faced: iway, wimway, iway with boonprots instead of oders. touchways (even in 1st altar map), starburtsers (warying between suicial 'who need monks, were 6 eles' and actually sane spike), ancestors rage spike (nasty oponents), doom spike, ranger spike, barrageway spike, blood spike, N/A chillbains/signet of agony spike, coultess variationg on ballanced, tons or variations of smite. and even minion factories. (ok, most were flawessed.)

Builds in 8v8 are just as diversive, if not more so. All of the builds you listed there have been used in 8v8, and more.



* fast play thats actually fun. you could meet anything anywhere.

It is more intense for a good player in 8v8 because the extra 4 players need to be watched and kept track of too - if you dont know what X is doing, he is a bigger threat to you then if not.


* fact that most common fame farming groups (smiters) were so diverse added lots of fun. no more pedantic 'bring skill X'. you got decent people together, synced builds that need syncing and you would end up with non-cookie team that has established build (which is kinda weird)

This doesnt really make sense, but i think you mean that you like the fact the builds are less planned and rounded. You want RA?


* it devaluated rank and strenghtened it at same time. yes, its positive. anyone caring about having rank 3 had good opportunity to gain it.

But all of a sudden Rank 3 means less because everyone has had such an easy chance to get it.


* destruction of cookies. wimway, iway, etc simply cant survive in 6 vs 6, while weird build can net some fame, its not reliable enough.

Wait! you just said earlier that these builds were used!? Anyway - Any build in 8v8 can net some fame, same as 6v6. You seem to think cookies havent already arrived in 6v6? Ranger condition pressure build?


* weaking of every spike. the fact that boon can stop spike with reversal in theese conditions ...

Spikes on a whole arent that effective vs a decent team. AND you are contradicting yourself again because you said 6v6 made builds more diverse, yet you are now saying all spikes are weakened?


* unviability of holding builds. now you actually have to fight to keep your halls.

Holding builds can still be put together with relative ease.


* and, its was fun

I know this is your personal opinion, and everyone enjoyed it to diferent levels. I prefer 8v8.




Er... yeah? That's sorta the problem. Lack of utility means an increase in luck matches. If I want luck I'll play dice.

Or TA? 32 skills to counter a possible... errr.. i forgot the total, damn anet keeps changing it... Anyway, the point is if you dont have much room for utility/counters, how are you gunna beat teams that just outluck you with the team setup?

Nesha
04-09-2006, 22:07
BTW ...every friend I talk to ..who are full time HA players, are saying they will stop playing GW if 6 v 6 stay, as most of them only play HA as it's the only part of the game they still enjoy.

The people I have talked to who like 6 v 6 are not the people who are full time HA players. Is it a good idea to ignore what the people who only play HA, who are really commited to it say??

mrankh
04-09-2006, 23:22
I agree with making it a spereate arena, but when I was looking for teams, many found no more use for voice chat, meaning they were taking some of the strategy element away? No, I dont want that. I want to be able to relay information on the battlefield by talking. I think HA needs that element of the game. At least it kind of brings a stop to the immensity of IWAY, but VIM got a boost in popularity I think (lol at ViM). w/e happens, I know my precious GvG will stay the same.


-----------------------------------------------------

Necros Feel Yaks (Mo/)
Simbas Last Pride [ScaR] r 39
Grawls Gone Wild [gRwl]

Wuzzman
05-09-2006, 00:14
lol o plz the only reason this is even a thread is because iway and bspike can't be run in 6v6 ha.

Antillio
05-09-2006, 00:30
I like it new build combinations will be made, more stuff to hate and more stuff to love xD keep it this way we then have corection to OP - 4vs4(Arena's) , 6vsv6(HA) , 8vs8(GvG) and 12vs12 (AB)

MaximumSquid
05-09-2006, 02:10
Tombs needs some updates. . .

I think everyone can agree on that at least.

kote
05-09-2006, 03:14
But all of a sudden Rank 3 means less because everyone has had such an easy chance to get it.


Rank means less since IWAY, and 6v6 made IWAY much easier to beat.

Cantos
05-09-2006, 03:55
I like 6v6 HA. I should disclaimer myself though by saying that I am a GvG player, and go to HA normally every few months, during ladder locks or when we feel like a break. I like the smaller party size because I could see myself playing more HA if it's an option for when me and my GvG friends cant find a full 8.


That's true - I picked a build with an obvious weakness, to make it more obvious. But what about a 'balanced' build? It's balanced because it has no paticular weaknesses, and because it has the ability to counter pretty much everything to a certain extent. But if you take 16 skills out of that build, how do you choose what to lose? If you take out an Extinguish, you'll be weak vs ViM. If you take out the infuser, it's going to be tough to counter a spike. The lack of enough build counters means that strategy alone is not enough to earn your team a win. If my team is more experienced than the IWAY team we're facing, then we should probably beat them. But if we're running E-Denial and we don't have a ton of warrior hate, we're going to have problems. Even if we outmaneuver them, kill their spirits, drain their trappers, whatever, we're still going to take a lot of damage from their warriors.I cannot agree with these sentiments, and I believe they are the product of an immature 6v6 meta. If your 8v8 smite build no longer has room for a Tainter with Consume Corpse, then there really isnt any reason you cant run CC on a Smiter or a Warrior.


GW is a game designed and balanced around the 8man team concept. It simply is not possible to take the skills you need to effect the mechanisms of the HA maps with only 6. Part of the reason so many of the popular builds are on an increase (IWAY, ViM, etc) is because it is no longer possible to take the skills needed to counter them.I have never believed in the rock scissors paper aspect of Guild Wars. In this case, why do you need specific skills to counter the IWAY/ViM build? You beat them by being more mobile, not hanging around in traps and hoping an Extinguish can save you.

Vexed Arcanist
05-09-2006, 04:03
BTW ...every friend I talk to ..who are full time HA players, are saying they will stop playing GW if 6 v 6 stay, as most of them only play HA as it's the only part of the game they still enjoy.

Any time there is a change in a game someone always says "If this stays" or "They did this" so "I am quitting for good". They never do.

Buddah
05-09-2006, 05:11
Rank means less since IWAY, and 6v6 made IWAY much easier to beat.
Rank meant nothing since Anet allowed the fame bug to linger for months. Means even less than nothing when you maintain and play off of two accounts.




Er... yeah? That's sorta the problem. Lack of utility means an increase in luck matches. If I want luck I'll play dice.That's the problem with 8vs8. They want all their utility for every occasion. In 6vs6 I found you were lucky to get more than 5 skills you could say weren't essential in many team builds. Even then you might not be able to work in counters as many were in professions that weren't in the team.

Also it's a matter of luck in those 3 ways if two teams will turn on one and drive them out. You should also know that well.

David Holtzman
05-09-2006, 06:43
I have never believed in the rock scissors paper aspect of Guild Wars. In this case, why do you need specific skills to counter the IWAY/ViM build? You beat them by being more mobile, not hanging around in traps and hoping an Extinguish can save you.

Try it in Broken Tower. Get back to me on how well that mobility pays off.

************************************************** ********


That's the problem with 8vs8. They want all their utility for every occasion.

How, precisely, is that a problem? Limiting moves doesn't make a game more strategic, it makes it more luck based.


Also it's a matter of luck in those 3 ways if two teams will turn on one and drive them out. You should also know that well.

Which is why 3ways aren't a particularly good sort of map. They are far too prone to abuse, as we know well. Admittedly there are strategies that will allow you to possibly escape from dual ganks (believe me, we've had the chance to try out several), but that ends up just a matter of luck whether the other teams really want you out of the game or not.

DreamWind
05-09-2006, 07:39
Why are many of the people who voted no actually new accounts with 1-5 posts. Just curious. :rolleyes:

Ok I am hearing some good points about not keeping it 6v6. I think the map thing is the biggest concern...overall the maps aren't that great for 6v6. But then again, a lot of people would agree that the maps aren't that great for 8v8 either lol. So that isn't really the greatest argument.

The argument that 8 man is less luck based than 6 man is a bit random. If thats the case, then why not argue for 12v12 gvgs? Because Anet knows its going to be impossible to get that many people together consistently...so they stuck with 8. I think this weekend was brilliant because it allowed for serious pvp with 6 people, thus making teams much easier to get together.

Nevertheless, I still personally wouldn't mind a bit if it was kept 6v6 (although we know it isn't). In my opinion the choice to play serious 6v6 pvp is something Anet should look in to. Also it shouldn't just be an upgrade to TA, I don't really consider that serious.

Servant of Kali
05-09-2006, 08:51
No. It should be 8v8.

Why? Because i want a NEW arena system with 6v6.

HA is boring. The maps were ok to start with, but after a year they REALLY limit the number of possible builds. I havent played HA for half a yr and i did again this weekend. You think it's fun that every 2nd team is IWAY or ViMway? No it's not. You think it's fun that some builds are totally not possible in HA because maps kill em?

demonkiller
05-09-2006, 10:58
i liked this 6v6 HA, it's easyly to start a group, and IWAY, R Spike and B Spike is not powerful as before


Il Demon Killer Il

Domina Spellbinder
05-09-2006, 12:36
keep it 6v6 and within months it will be known as the ViM-arena. I think 2 out of 3 groups I encountered ran it.

Lykan
05-09-2006, 12:58
Why are many of the people who voted no actually new accounts with 1-5 posts. Just curious

Just from looking at the names I can tell you these are the people who play HA everyday and are so outraged at the prospect of a permanent 6vs6 they have registered just to get their views heard.

Thats the problem with keeping 6vs6, it might get new people playing, but a hell of a lot of the fulltimers may just quit outright and you'll be back with the same number we had before.

There are many posts here about how the new format has addded variety to HA, strange, all i see on my runs is VIM, VIM, Degenway, VIM, Hexway, VIM, Degenway, Hexway and VIM.

There is only so much you can do with 6 players, 6vs6 will become very stagnent very fast. Yes there were more people playing HA this weekend but this was mainly because of the double fame and not the new format.

Patccmoi
05-09-2006, 14:47
keep it 6v6 and within months it will be known as the ViM-arena. I think 2 out of 3 groups I encountered ran it.

How often did you get past Broken Tower? Just that honestly i very rarely faced a Vimway team past that. I'll agree that Vimway was boring though, it was like facing Zaishen during 3-4 maps. One to enter, Vimway to pass the Underworld, Vimway to pass Priest map, good chances of Vimway in Broken Tower, and then you could start fighting with other good teams. The first 2 maps seemed to have like 80% chances to be either Vimway or Henchway.

But i don't really agree with everyone saying that the metagame would stall fast to what was seen in this weekend (at least not more than the 8v8 metagame is stalled to a vast majority of IWAY/Vimway/BSpike/RSpike. Good guilds play other setup, but they did this weekend too. Hell, i held hall 4 times in a row with an Assassin). In 1 weekend, especially double fame, people want fast wins more than anything, and when they find a build that works they just play it as much as they can. It's kinda ridiculous imo to say that we saw all the possible builds there, and given time 6v6 could develop its own niche of unique builds.

I don't want HA to become 6v6, it was designed for 8v8, but a new 6v6 arena would likely be a lot of fun and i very much doubt it would stall that fast.

TeeBeeNZ
05-09-2006, 14:57
The HoH must and always remain the elite PvP location it was made to be. But for this to happen it needs to be returned to its original state, with the maps supporting the max number of teams, and matches staying 8v8. Many who want it to be 6v6 know the pain of PUGs who have a hard time in the HoH, but I think thats a seperate issue that AN needs to fix. No-one likes playing in pugs, but if you are, chances are you dont have a choice.

I say 8v8 and return the HoHs map to the full teams and for the love of gods upgrade the Underworlds maps textures/lighting, they're terrible. HoH is supposed to behard, then let it be hard once more.

Nekretaal
05-09-2006, 15:11
GW is a game designed and balanced around the 8man team concept. It simply is not possible to take the skills you need to effect the mechanisms of the HA maps with only 6. .

I would like to keep the 6v6 simply because it makes getting together a PUG easier. I know that serious players hate PUGs but everybody has to start somewhere, and acquire the friends list somewhere.

I started guild wars in February, and even then HA was a dead zone in the american districts. As a newcomer it seemed that you couldnt get into a party unless your were R3... and you dint have R3 simply because other players had a 8 month lead on you.

Pity the poor factions players who bvought factions for the pvp reputation of guild wars, but ran into the R3 buzzsaw of HA.

I like 6v6. I liked that you were able to play even if you were a noob this weekend, or, if you were not a noob, you could play and not be forced into insane skips.

However, if 6v6 is to be kept as serious pvp, then the game balacers ought to look at skills balancing. I hardly saw any assassins this weekend, and saw no necro who didnt use "tainted flesh" as their elite. I didnt see many mesmer or ritualist either. Part of it is HA and FOTM builds (saw a lot of dual smite and VIMWAY), but I wonder if a massive skills rebalancing isnt needed if the format is to stay.

opuis
05-09-2006, 15:25
Absolutely not IMO. I believe the people who want to keep it 6v6 are the ones who have a problem finding groups. The only thing I really liked about the 6v6 was the ability to run henchway with 1 buddy.

I found this weekend to be interesting nonetheless. Alot of darn good teams in as well. Consistency seemed to be an issue IMO. We'd either roll a team or be rolled - It was fast. Alter matches were even worse as far as luck. And even though most of it was free fame, Eww at the amount of Vimway being ran. Geese, it's not even fun to run.

Going up against some of the 9-12 teams or top guilds were the best battles. It always amazes me what you can learn when you think you know quite a bit.

My glorious moment of the weekend - Accidentally Shocking someone's pet. That was a first and it was quite amusing. Playing PD Mesmer was by far what I had the most fun playing. Early in the weekend PD Me/E with Wards was fun. Later in the weekend Hexes had become stronger.



I would like to keep the 6v6 simply because it makes getting together a PUG easier. I know that serious players hate PUGs but everybody has to start somewhere, and acquire the friends list somewhere.

Quite frankly, no offense to you, you'll never get very far pugging. The quicker you learn this the better off you are. I was you several months ago. If you're interested in HA, join a PvP guild. I left my PvE guild after 9 months of being there, being leader, etc. Joining a good PvP guild is the first step. Serious players do not hate PUGs, they just know theyre not going to do well PUGing (in most instances).

bellissima
05-09-2006, 15:43
I've been thinking about this, and I believe that Heros Ascent should stay 6v6 instead of going back to 8v8. Here are some reasons why:

-It is a welcome change that most people I know are enjoying
It was indeed a nice break from the same old, but it will get just as old as 8v8 if it stays.


-It is easier to find teams and play when you only need 6 players instead of 8
I actually had the problem of having more players that wanted to play than spots for them all. I was sad that I couldn't have everyone together on a team.


-Leaving it 6v6 will give players 3 options, 4v4 (TA), 6v6 (HA), and 8v8 (GvG)
I'd not be opposed to having a 6v6 arena somewhere, but I don't think HA is particularly suited to it for reasons I'll elaborate on below.

So 6v6 has some of the same issues that I dislike about 4v4. It's a rock-paper-scissors game because you don't have enough skill slots on the team to be diverse. This is a problem in HA where you have to win consecutively to advance. If you come up against a team for whom you have no counter, you have to start over. We rolled many teams that were far more experienced (and I dare say skilled) players than us simply because of what builds we both were running. It's not fun to win that way and it's absolutely awful to lose that way.

It's already hard enough in 8v8 to fit your build onto 64 skill slots and leave room for the "must haves." Some skills are just so essential for certain HA maps that if you run into a team on that map that has the skill and you don't, it won't be a level playing field. With more skill slots available by having 8 ppl instead of 6, everyone at least has the opportunity to take what is needed.

ZiegDivine
05-09-2006, 16:09
6v6 doesn't take any skill at all. It's sad, but it's true. I just pugged with a r3 VIMway ... it was sad. Organized good teams got wasted by us, because so much pressure is too much for the monks to handle. True, it's refreshing, but within a couple of weeks it would get old.

ubard
05-09-2006, 16:39
Yeah, i'm actually currently loving playing the 6v6, but maybe it's just because regular HA has gotten pretty stale. But doing this won't change stuff as much as keeping it 8v8 and simply releasing nightfull, the new skills and whatnot there will probably be enough too refresh the game. :)

like the above poster said, it's great now, but who's too say it'll become even worse than 8v8 HA after we are used too it.

And really, not changing it will keep more people happy. And on a minor point, changing it would take away any nostalgia i feel about noobing it up in good old deserty primeval kings. :) EDIT: ooh but that means HA builds with 2 monks, here comes that nostalgia again!

Too the above poster: i dunno about that, 70% of the teams i have fought so far in 6v6 have been ViM, and smacking them is rarely too hard.

Anyhoo, intersting idea, but the chance of this becoming reality is very small. 8v8 has been where it's at since, like the beggining. I would however, like too see a couple more events like this, the're spiffin.

Edric
05-09-2006, 19:01
6v6 was fun for a weekend, but I think it was the double fame that got people into the HA event. The change in format made it easier for smaller guilds and unranked players to get into teams since most 8v8 teams are harder to break into.

I would not want to see the format stick for HA just because I think that having a non-GvG 8v8 format is good for those people who are in a guild and want 8v8 PvP but cannot always GvG with their guild. Also, the battle to the HoH is interesting with an 8 person format.

I never saw the HoH this weekend mainly due to all the high quality teams running around. I did see the courtyard and dark chambers a few times but that's the furthest my teams were able to climb.

Lothiron
05-09-2006, 19:50
-It is easier to find teams and play when you only need 6 players instead of 8

......Only if you are willing to run VIMWAY or some other crap build.

6v6 should go die a terrible death; too many gimmick builds, and not enough diversity. It was just annoying seeing all the spam for VIM in the HA districts. Plus, 6v6 makes running a balanced build even more difficult than it already was in HA.

David Holtzman
05-09-2006, 20:18
I would like to keep the 6v6 simply because it makes getting together a PUG easier. I know that serious players hate PUGs but everybody has to start somewhere, and acquire the friends list somewhere.

Serious players don't hate pugs in the sense that they hate the actual pugs, they just hate going out with mediocre players who aren't very good. As for making pugs, the solution is a pug finding system, not a change in the number of people in HA.


I started guild wars in February, and even then HA was a dead zone in the american districts. As a newcomer it seemed that you couldnt get into a party unless your were R3... and you dint have R3 simply because other players had a 8 month lead on you.

Yeah, we've all heard it. But you know what? Every single person above r3 had to get it themselves too. That has nothing to do with the size of HA, it has to do with people having standards of player quality.


Pity the poor factions players who bvought factions for the pvp reputation of guild wars, but ran into the R3 buzzsaw of HA.

Pity the poor players who decided to cry about it, not the ones who decided to earn their place.


I hardly saw any assassins this weekend, and saw no necro who didnt use "tainted flesh" as their elite. I didnt see many mesmer or ritualist either. Part of it is HA and FOTM builds (saw a lot of dual smite and VIMWAY), but I wonder if a massive skills rebalancing isnt needed if the format is to stay.

Should have watches us play then =p We ran with 2 mesmers and a nec who wasn't tainted.

ZiegDivine
05-09-2006, 20:34
David, you're beating a dead horse. There will always be those who complain about the "elitism" in HA, which IMO as we all know, doesn't exist.

bellissima
05-09-2006, 21:26
I hardly saw any assassins this weekend, and saw no necro who didnt use "tainted flesh" as their elite.
If you didn't play single match against a blood spike then you weren't playing enough... :rolleyes:

David Holtzman
05-09-2006, 21:34
David, you're beating a dead horse.

I've always thought that line to be awfully silly. That it has been debated before in no way makes it less relevant to the now, so why even bring it up?


There will always be those who complain about the "elitism" in HA, which IMO as we all know, doesn't exist.

What? Of course it exists, don't be silly. The problem isn't that it exists, the problem is that it is fully justified.

ZiegDivine
05-09-2006, 21:50
Alright, you're NOT beating a dead horse. You're repeating yourself over and over. Better?

Elitism in HA exists only for those who aren't willing to follow the rules, connect to the social network. Otherwise, it is irrelevant, doesn't affect the gameplay very much, therefore doesn't exist.

David Holtzman
05-09-2006, 22:03
Alright, you're NOT beating a dead horse. You're repeating yourself over and over. Better?

To different people. Exactly like a teacher does for different classes. I assume you're not against teachers, are you?


Elitism in HA exists only for those who aren't willing to follow the rules, connect to the social network.

Nonsense. Rank elitism still exists. Doesn't matter if you've got a social network or not, you still can't join a random r9 pug if you're r5. You may have ways of getting around the system (like friends who can pull you in), but that in absolutely no way affects the existence of elitism.


Otherwise, it is irrelevant, doesn't affect the gameplay very much, therefore doesn't exist.

Relevancy has NOTHING to do with existence. Microsoft isn't relevant to this discussion, does that mean it doesn't exist?

ZiegDivine
05-09-2006, 22:44
EDIT: you know what? I don't even care. Whatever.

Wet One
05-09-2006, 23:41
6v6 was fun for a weekend even because of the double fame... Most builds lacked the versatility that we are used to... It did kill kill iway.. but to take its place was another boring combo the vim/iway combo.... which was 80% of all builds faced till broken tower or even courtyard...

The game when reduced to 6v6 is as David previously said much more luck based rather than strat or skill based... Other people said that you need to pick your 8 skills more carefully... Any good group always picks their 64 skills VERY carefully if they want to win... 6v6 just means you have less to pick from and YOU WILL have holes in your defense.

6v6 is fun if you wanna keep it make is a seperate arena... 8v8 is HA and thats how it was concieved to be played... I just want some new maps... thats really all i want... PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE?????

DreamWind
05-09-2006, 23:58
The argument that "all I see is VIM OMGz" is a horrible argument against 6v6 HoH. Lets face it, there was FOTM's before in 8v8...its called iway and people were complaining about that. I don't see how 6v6 changes that FOTM's exist.

The other argument that you don't have enough skill slots to set up a proper defense isn't that great either. People are forgetting that the other team doesn't have as much offensive skills either. You don't NEED as much defense because there isn't as much offense to prepare for. Besides, if you are arguing this, then again I say why not just argue for 12v12 or 16v16 HoH and GvG?

I still the say the only legitamate argument is that the HoH maps aren't correctly made for 6v6, which I agree with. But that doesn't even matter much because most serious HoH players agree that many of the maps are already flawed in 8v8 anyways.

In the end, HoH will probably stay 8v8 anyways. I do think Anet needs to consider a 6v6 type arena that has similar nice rewards and competition that HoH does. If they just made a 6v6 team arena nobody serious would play it.

agentele
06-09-2006, 01:13
Pvp is bout stratigy, not constant vimway nd iway noobs as i saw this weekend.
Its grt fun once in a while but I prefer 8v8 FTW.

Snype Doesnt Heal
06-09-2006, 03:13
The argument that "all I see is VIM OMGz" is a horrible argument against 6v6 HoH. Lets face it, there was FOTM's before in 8v8...its called iway and people were complaining about that. I don't see how 6v6 changes that FOTM's exist.

The other argument that you don't have enough skill slots to set up a proper defense isn't that great either. People are forgetting that the other team doesn't have as much offensive skills either. You don't NEED as much defense because there isn't as much offense to prepare for. Besides, if you are arguing this, then again I say why not just argue for 12v12 or 16v16 HoH and GvG?

I still the say the only legitamate argument is that the HoH maps aren't correctly made for 6v6, which I agree with. But that doesn't even matter much because most serious HoH players agree that many of the maps are already flawed in 8v8 anyways.

In the end, HoH will probably stay 8v8 anyways. I do think Anet needs to consider a 6v6 type arena that has similar nice rewards and competition that HoH does. If they just made a 6v6 team arena nobody serious would play it.

I agree that the oppsing team WILL have less offense, however that still does not solve the problem of being able to be prepared for ALMOST every build. In 8v8 play, you have 8 characters to put secondary professions on that can help your defense. (example: tainted warder). However, if you do run a n/e warder, and 2 monks, you only have 3 spaces left for further defense. Then if you put in a w/e, you have only 2 left for defense, and not much room for anything ouside of additional offense.

On the other hand...if you have 8 players, you will be running 3 monks (most likely), tainted warder, and a warrior. That leaves 3 more slots for defense, and 3 secondaries for defense. Now one more character might not seem like much, but that 3rd monk adds a TON of defense to the build, such as additional hex removals, condition removals, and of course, healing. Without the 3rd monk, you need to fill these into your remaining 5 characters in 6v6 play. And lets face it, there is not much room in ANY build to add that much defense.

/end speech

Nobleman Azure
06-09-2006, 04:18
i like it 6v6. I guess im nubby

calderstrake
06-09-2006, 04:48
I cast my vote for the 'yay'.

In a lot of ways, people were adapting GvG builds to HA and vice versa. This kind of created a mush of builds and the creative process has been stifled. Allowing for this new limited format will also help teams create a 6-man build capable of holding the flag stand in a GvG match and then running a 2-man split. I defiantely think the double fame needs to be reduced back to its original state, but the 6v6 should stay.

/congrats to ANet for trying somethign different!

Savsuds
06-09-2006, 04:54
Many of the complaints I have been reading about in this thread are based on the FotW(weekend) in the 6v6 HA. Many of the better groups and players did not have problems facing VIMWAY, IWAY, Smite before or after HA was made into a 6v6 this past weekend.

VIMWAY, Dual Smite (crappy dual smites), IWAY and other simple builds builds were there only for farming the first 2-3 maps then restart. I know I was only expecting 6-12 fame runs at a time when I played those builds just to maximize the fame farming without having to organize a friend's list group and plan for anything.

Too many people just played VIMWAY and the like to have learned anything about competitive PvP fundamentals. Yes, more people got their deers (my second account included), but many of them learned nothing about kiting, tactics, etc. Heck, I even talked to some pick-ups who played VIMWAY early in the weekend and even they did not know the strengths of that build or the weaknesses. To know what can defeat you, why it can defeat you and how to prevent that from happening is essential to success.

I got so frustrated trying to teach people how to counter VIMWAY, Barrageway, Smite, etc. People just do not listen or even cared that they could have easily have beaten those builds with the skills given to them by me or others. Learning is fundamental for development and I saw too little of it this weekend.

Hopefully they use their newly gained deers to get in a decent group and play in a diverse collection of builds and roles to increase their abilities, not just your fame count.

6V6 was fun, but has to go. I do believe I will be spending more time in HA, when not GvGing though, as the excitement is back for that arena for me.

Hates
06-09-2006, 06:35
You don't NEED as much defense because there isn't as much offense to prepare for. Besides, if you are arguing this, then again I say why not just argue for 12v12 or 16v16 HoH and GvG?

Who would take that arguement? The maps (and probably the game too) aren't built for organized 12v12 or 16v16. The bodyblocking, even by your own team, would be terrible (relic run with 32 people on the map? Have fun with that). How about scarred earth? How agonizingly long do you want that map? You'd have to redo all the maps and if you're going to redo maps, just redo the HA maps and leave it 8v8.

Patccmoi
06-09-2006, 06:56
You don't NEED as much defense because there isn't as much offense to prepare for.

That's actually not true, and what you don't seem to see is that this is why people called it 'rock, paper, scisor'. Sure, you don't have to face as much offense, but WHAT will that offense be?

Mass hex? Mass conditions? Blood Spike? Heavy melee offense like IWAY (which was still successfully ran by some good teams)? It's kinda impossible with 6 people to make a build that can cover nearly all possibilities. Some could still adapt pretty well and win against most builds through tactics and skill (for example the 2 ranger interrupts + NR/Tranq team can interrupt in theory nearly anything causing them trouble) most can't.

A good example is something we said running Blood Spike:

- Do we take a Convert Hexes?
- No, if we need a Convert Hexes, one won't be enough

Basically, prepare for what you can and accept that there is some builds you simply can't handle in a 6 men format...

werd
06-09-2006, 07:04
i miss 6v6 already

DreamWind
06-09-2006, 09:15
Basically, prepare for what you can and accept that there is some builds you simply can't handle in a 6 men format...

Most 8 man teams can't prepare for every single possibility either. I'm not saying I dislike 8v8, I think its great. I'm just saying the arguments that 8v8 is the "ideal" number that the game was built around aren't that great. Why not 9v9 or 7v7? 8v8 isn't perfect, especially in HoH, and neither is 6v6.

Basically I've had more fun in HoH than essentially ever last weekend and there should be a 6v6 pvp of some sort. End opinion.

David Holtzman
06-09-2006, 11:52
Most 8 man teams can't prepare for every single possibility either.

Actually, in general they can. I know we do it, and I know plenty of other teams that do as well.


I'm just saying the arguments that 8v8 is the "ideal" number that the game was built around aren't that great.

There's no argument, it's a fact. GW was designed around the 8 man team. Period. Why not 9 or 10 or 50 or 3? Because Anet decided on 8. All skills are balanced around their power in the 8 man team and against the power of an 8 man team.


You don't NEED as much defense because there isn't as much offense to prepare for.

This statement is false. Most teams dropped a monk and a utility character, leaving all their main damage in place. The loss of a monk far outweighs the damage reduced by the loss of an enemy utility player. Teams that could scrape by on damage (like ViM) became immensely powerful for this exact reason.

ZiegDivine
06-09-2006, 14:33
- Do we take a Convert Hexes?
- No, if we need a Convert Hexes, one won't be enough

I was the convert hexes necro ... a lot of good THAT did us against a hex team -_-

Psymun
06-09-2006, 18:23
I really liked the change to 6v6. I think it did made the HA play out a lot better. I hope they strongly consider changing it back to 6v6 again soon.

Buddah
06-09-2006, 19:00
Teams that could scrape by on damage (like ViM) became immensely powerful for this exact reason.
No, ViM became powerful because the bulk of the people in HA this weekend had no clue how to fight it.

It also gained some stock in the fact that most spikes weren't really there. Over the whole event I crossed path with 7-8 spike groups, most of which were Starburst. I saw three times that in ViM alone


It's kinda impossible with 6 people to make a build that can cover nearly all possibilities. That's part of the charm. Kind of hard to hold when some less popular build pops up.

Patccmoi
06-09-2006, 20:04
That's part of the charm. Kind of hard to hold when some less popular build pops up.

That 'charm' is also what would scare competitive players away fast. Why bother to compete when you know there is good chances you will face a build you simply CANNOT beat no matter how well you play and how good your tactics are because you just don't have the skill set required?

In 8v8, a totally uncommon build can surprise you and destroy you too even if you cover for most of the possibilities. The difference is that most of the time a TACTICAL change can allow for a win with a fairly balanced team build, and that's perfect. Tactical challenges are awesome. Not having skills required leading into a one-way slaughter because you can't adapt at all is funny for 1 weekend, especially with the double fame meaning you still get good amount without going into high streak, but it would kill the competitive player base pretty fast.

If you have different maps, that won't necessarily force you for example to have skills for interrupting a hero repeatedly, running relics, holding against 2 teams in 3 ways, etc., then maybe 6 players can cover for what's needed. But HA has so many different map types that 6 players isn't enough to cover for it.

Wet One
06-09-2006, 20:11
No, ViM became powerful because the bulk of the people in HA this weekend had no clue how to fight it.

As is the same with people always *****ing about iway etc... Its not that its hard to beat if you arent a total spaz, its just that it gets so damn boring facing it round after round after round... oh hey look scared earth i get to beat the vim/iway trash back to back and still only get fame for 1 win... lame...



It also gained some stock in the fact that most spikes weren't really there. Over the whole event I crossed path with 7-8 spike groups, most of which were Starburst. I saw three times that in ViM alone


Yea we ran a mini-rainbow spike and it rolled over people really fast. 2 E/Mo with orb, strike, prodigy and the rest healing, 1 N/Mo bip blah blah, 1 ranger w/spirits and spike, and a mes with pp/shatter burn blah blah... then we ran 1 boon prot... and the only time we had problems was against a tele ele spike on a map where we couldnt spread out... most groups dropped their infuser and sb so it made spiking really easy and with only 1 choking *** it was easy to avoid that as well...

Overal 8 man takes more skill/tactical knowlege to win consistantly, and i think that a lot of the luck is removed from matches. I prefer 8 man, 6 man was fun for a bit but the builds seem to lack versatility and are too situational.

Tucks
06-09-2006, 20:33
6v6 is like TA in this respect: Its like rock, paper, scissors.. 80% of the time, the match is chosen before the 2 teams meet, simple by the builds. The 20% of the time is when they both have the same build, then it comes down to who can play that specific build better.

Game 1: Oh look, you have rock, my paper beats rock.
Game 2: Oh look, you have scissors, your scissors beats my paper.
Game 3: We both have paper! For once it comes down to the skill of the players.

If you argue that there is a build out there that can cover all builds, wouldn't everyone run it?
If you really want to play a game that boils down to luck, then i wouldn't go for Guild wars. I hear slot machines are popular.

This weekend, i lost a match in halls simply because we didn't have room in our build for corpse control, does that not strike you as being incredibly lame?

David Holtzman
06-09-2006, 20:37
No, ViM became powerful because the bulk of the people in HA this weekend had no clue how to fight it.

The way to beat ViM is to make them lay traps but you never get trapped. Ever try it on broken tower? If you don't have the backline, your ghost just dies on the altar because you can't take a restore condy along to get that DW buried under 4 or 5 other conditions.


That's part of the charm. Kind of hard to hold when some less popular build pops up.

I see no charm in increasing luck based games. Want luck? Go roll dice for your matches. I want thought and strategy and if they're at the expense of charm, I'm more than willing to see that tradeoff.

Darknicrofia
06-09-2006, 21:24
If you argue that there is a build out there that can cover all builds, wouldn't everyone run it?...

there is a wonderful build like that, its called a well designed balanced build.

complete with interrupts, melee defense, caster defense etc. Its really a wonderful creation.

Why don't everyone run it? because people want easy fame points, and a well designed balanced build is hard to run and even harder to come up with.

Tucks
06-09-2006, 22:34
there is a wonderful build like that, its called a well designed balanced build.

complete with interrupts, melee defense, caster defense etc. Its really a wonderful creation.

Why don't everyone run it? because people want easy fame points, and a well designed balanced build is hard to run and even harder to come up with.

You cant fit everything into a 6v6 team though. Lets assume you use a 2 monk back line(arguably not enough vs some of the builds out there), then you need to fit damage and enough utility onto 4 players to cover lot of stuff.

DreamWind
07-09-2006, 00:29
There's no argument, it's a fact. GW was designed around the 8 man team. Period. Why not 9 or 10 or 50 or 3? Because Anet decided on 8. All skills are balanced around their power in the 8 man team and against the power of an 8 man team.

And we all know how perfect Anet is and how perfectly balanced all the skills are :rolleyes:. Well if 8v8 is "perfect" then why does nobody complain about balance and not having enough skills in TA? Because 4v4 works just fine there and the most skilled team wins 95% of the time there too. Same goes for 6v6 and 8v8. Most skilled team usually wins. Guild Wars clearly isn't luck based regardless of team size.

The argument that 6v6 creates rock paper scissors isn't great. That is basically the metagame...there will always be situations where a certain build has an advantage over some builds, but is weak against others. Claiming that 6v6 is less balanced than 8v8 is without proof when 6v6 only lasted for a few days and we only saw the beginning of what the metagame could have become. Besides, 8v8 HoH isn't balanced...its not meant to be. The holding team in halls has a severe disadvantage, hence the reason holding builds are so popular in 8v8.

I think thats the reason a lot of people liked the change, because they were sick of seeing the same crap. I still agree the maps are an issue overall, but personally I wouldn't mind a bit of the change to 6v6 was made because getting teams together is so much easier. Of course we know that won't happen but meh oh well. =/

neoflame
07-09-2006, 01:59
I think part of the problem is that HA players have been spoiled by being able to bring absolutely everything; see Spell Breaker. Even GvG isn't full 8v8 a fair amount of the time.

David Holtzman
07-09-2006, 02:15
And we all know how perfect Anet is and how perfectly balanced all the skills are :rolleyes:.

You are aware that sarcasm isn't an argument, right?


Well if 8v8 is "perfect" then why does nobody complain about balance and not having enough skills in TA? Because 4v4 works just fine there and the most skilled team wins 95% of the time there too. Same goes for 6v6 and 8v8. Most skilled team usually wins. Guild Wars clearly isn't luck based regardless of team size.

Um... no. People don't complain in TA for 2 main reasons: first, the map mechanics are designed with 4 people in mind. You don't have altars, 3 way fights, relics, etc. Second, people in TA don't complain because it's pointless. The game is balanced for 8, and if that leads to unbalance in 4, well, too damn bad. They can go cry about it if they want to, but it isn't going to help much.

In HA however, maps are designed with mechanics that require 64 skills to utilize effectively. You are correct that the better team usually wins, but to claim that this is indicative of GW not being luck based is such an absurd argument I'm surprised you even brought it forward. The better teams win because of one thing: they are good at adapting to new situations. That's all it is, nothing to do with luck. The luck factor comes into play when you keep build options but reduce available utility. If they have a seeking and you can't fit in a blind, well, you lose the altar. And if you take blind maybe you drop humility so PD gets you. Or maybe your 40% guardian doesn't activate but their's does. That's called luck. Luck is the vlaue of chance being in your favor. To claim there is no luck is to claim there is no chance, and to claim there is no chance in GW is such an absurdly false statement I can't believe it's come up.


The argument that 6v6 creates rock paper scissors isn't great. That is basically the metagame...there will always be situations where a certain build has an advantage over some builds, but is weak against others.

You're missing the point. No one cares that a build has an advantage over others in some situations, the question is how much. Is the advantage able to be reasonably overcome? If yes there is no issue. If not then the game is somehow flawed. A team needs to be able to take enough moves in that they can at least somewhat address the metagame. If you remove moves, all you do is decrease strategy. At ultimate reduction what you get is basic RPS. The more moves you add, the more strategic a game becomes, like chess or go.


Claiming that 6v6 is less balanced than 8v8 is without proof when 6v6 only lasted for a few days and we only saw the beginning of what the metagame could have become.

No, at this point in time we've got a year and a bit of PvP GW experience. We are pretty qualified at this point to make arguments and come to conclusions. It was fairly obvious that HA was not designed to handle 6v6 combat effectively.


Besides, 8v8 HoH isn't balanced...its not meant to be. The holding team in halls has a severe disadvantage, hence the reason holding builds are so popular in 8v8.

The above statement is contradictory.

DreamWind
07-09-2006, 03:34
You are aware that sarcasm isn't an argument, right?
Yes, it was just a showing of my opinion on the earlier statement that Anet has somehow perfectly balanced the game.


Um... no. People don't complain in TA for 2 main reasons: first, the map mechanics are designed with 4 people in mind. You don't have altars, 3 way fights, relics, etc.

I stated earlier that the maps in HoH overall are not the greatest for 6v6. But who cares? They aren't the greatest for 8v8 either. Oh and your TA point is interesting. The reason people don't even mention the TA balance is because there is hardly any inbalance in 4v4. In fact, TA probably has a better metagame and is definately more balanced than 8v8v8 HA. I still don't see how changing the number of players directly affects game balance.


In HA however, maps are designed with mechanics that require 64 skills to utilize effectively. You are correct that the better team usually wins, but to claim that this is indicative of GW not being luck based is such an absurd argument I'm surprised you even brought it forward. The better teams win because of one thing: they are good at adapting to new situations. That's all it is, nothing to do with luck. The luck factor comes into play when you keep build options but reduce available utility.

I didn't say Guild Wars doesn't have luck...of course it does, but it doesn't have anything to do with not bringing a skill. For example, I could argue that 6v6 HoH is MORE skill intensive than 8v8 HoH because you have to bring more skills that have multiple uses and more tightly pack your build with essentials over monodimensional skills. For example, you don't NEED consume corpse in your build...you could bring an interrupt and just interrupt the profane, while being able to deal with a lot of other skills as well.

I could even argue that monking is more skill intensive in 6v6 HoH. With the decreased power of channeling, monks are forced to work on their movement and battle position more than just "go in a big group of enemies and cast everything for free". That is one thing HoH lacks over GvG, positioning. The maps are so small, and with skills like channeling theres really not a ton of reason for it. Just one reason why most pvp players consider GvG far more skill intensive than HoH.

I could go on farther, but I don't agree that less players=less skill.


The more moves you add, the more strategic a game becomes, like chess or go.

Then again, why not argue to Anet for 16v16 HoH maps?


We are pretty qualified at this point to make arguments and come to conclusions. It was fairly obvious that HA was not designed to handle 6v6 combat effectively.

Unless you are a prophet, nobody can predict how a metagame will unfold over an extended period of time. I agree with your points that the HA maps are probably not the best for 6v6 combat however.


The above statement is contradictory.

I'll rephrase. Anet doesn't want HoH to be balanced for pve reasons (which I disagree with but I'm sure thats been discussed elsewhere)...hence the update that made it less time and only 3 teams. Altar maps are now more random than ever, so in order to be competitive you basically must make your build around this fact. Everybody knows this.

Basically what I'm saying is its a map problem overall. The maps cause the imbalances and added luck, not the number of players. And I'm STILL not convinced that less players means less skill. There could be an argument somewhere that it is less TEAM skill (as there are 2 less players to work in), but definately not less individual skill.

David Holtzman
07-09-2006, 05:54
Yes, it was just a showing of my opinion on the earlier statement that Anet has somehow perfectly balanced the game.

Statement by who? Certainly not me. I recommend you reread the section of my text that you cited. Nowhere in there did I claim anything of the sort.


I stated earlier that the maps in HoH overall are not the greatest for 6v6. But who cares? They aren't the greatest for 8v8 either. Oh and your TA point is interesting. The reason people don't even mention the TA balance is because there is hardly any inbalance in 4v4. In fact, TA probably has a better metagame and is definately more balanced than 8v8v8 HA. I still don't see how changing the number of players directly affects game balance.

It changes the balance because players change on maps whose mechanics do not change. TA has no mechanics almost. One map has a priest. There aren't any gate locks or flags or levers or relics or altars or anything that requires special attention. It's simple 4v4 anihilation; you just go kill each other until someone loses. But you don't have that on HA maps. Ok, a few maps are basic anihilation, but you also have 3 altars and 2 relics, all of which are different and require different utilities to play with any degree of effectiveness.


I didn't say Guild Wars doesn't have luck...of course it does, but it doesn't have anything to do with not bringing a skill.

What? Of course that's luck. It's the chance that they are just going to have the thing you cannot counter. If that chance goes your way, that's luck. If it doesn't, it's unlucky. If you simply cannot take in enough moves to be effective in all situations, you simply have to hope you don't encounter those situations. That's called luck.


For example, I could argue that 6v6 HoH is MORE skill intensive than 8v8 HoH because you have to bring more skills that have multiple uses and more tightly pack your build with essentials over monodimensional skills.

But, the flaw in this argument is that you ALWAYS want those sort of skills. It has nothing to do with it being 6v6 or 4v4 or 123v123. You always want dynamic skills because they are by far the most effective sort. All reducing moves did was reduce the amount of dynamic skill slots you had in a team in a map sequence where you needed many.


For example, you don't NEED consume corpse in your build...you could bring an interrupt and just interrupt the profane, while being able to deal with a lot of other skills as well.

We haven't run with corpse control in a very long time. This isn't anything new to 6v6.


I could even argue that monking is more skill intensive in 6v6 HoH. With the decreased power of channeling, monks are forced to work on their movement and battle position more than just "go in a big group of enemies and cast everything for free".

Nah, you could never do that. You do that you die.


That is one thing HoH lacks over GvG, positioning.

Nonsense. Positioning matters a great deal in tombs as well. In some senses it matters even more since you have no way of recouping deaths in most maps.


I could go on farther, but I don't agree that less players=less skill.

Not less skill, more luck. Players will have the same amount of skill regardless of what form of PvP they play. Just in these cases their skill will often be trumped by luck.


Then again, why not argue to Anet for 16v16 HoH maps?

Because of the same exact reasoning: the maps/skills are not designed for it. In a general sense 16v16 combat in a game built for it would work very well. Most sports work this way, for example.


Unless you are a prophet, nobody can predict how a metagame will unfold over an extended period of time. I agree with your points that the HA maps are probably not the best for 6v6 combat however.

Not a prophet, a historian. It wasn't really all that hard to guess where the meta for 6v6 was going to go. That's why we ran a counter meta team build and pretty much mopped up everything we came across. All you had to do was look at TA history and see what was run and modify it for 6man. Then do the same for HA. That's what was run.


Basically what I'm saying is its a map problem overall. The maps cause the imbalances and added luck, not the number of players. And I'm STILL not convinced that less players means less skill. There could be an argument somewhere that it is less TEAM skill (as there are 2 less players to work in), but definately not less individual skill.

I think you are confusing skill, skills, and strategy. Making a game less strategic does not affect technical player skill at all. You can have any degree of technical skill in games where absolutely no real strategy is required. That's sorta what 6v6 did. You still get players with skill winning over poorer players, but the matches are less complex and less strategic. This, in my opinion, is a bad thing. I like strategy and I think GW should focus highly on it. Reducing skills, or moves, is another thing that makes matches less strategic because it introduces more gambling. You simply bet against your odds of countering something you do not have the skills to deal with. This, in the end, is just luck. And luck is not strategic.

Patccmoi
07-09-2006, 08:01
DreamWind... you keep agreeing than maps in HA are not designed for 6v6. Can't you just agree too that this is the problem and a valid reason why HA SHOULDN'T be 6v6? Maps/system (long chain of victories leading to new, specific maps with different mechanics) aren't designed for it. Final.

You liked 6v6? Fine, i did too, it was refreshing. Ask for a 6v6 arena (which is likely to be introduced somewhere or ANet wouldn't have tested this). But realize that HA is DESIGNED for 8v8. If you agree that HA's maps aren't good for 6v6, you agree that HA isn't designed for 6v6 and there isn't much more to add...

You might say they are not the greatest for 8v8 (w/e you mean by that, no they are surely not perfect but nothing ever is really), but they are THOUGHT AND BALANCED for it. Enough different mechanics and game types to force a team of 8 players to bring different skills making them versatile in many situations. Why not 12/16/24/100? Because ANet decided on 8 and balanced it for 8. There isn't much more to say. It's not an act of god, it was a company's decision. Based on how much depth they wanted the game to have vs how many players they can fit and still make forming teams possible (good luck having a good competing base if you make the games 16 vs 16, most people would never form a team that isn't pretty much random). ANet decided on 8 and built/balanced around it. Wether it was a good choice is kinda irrelevant, the thing is that's what they chose. 6v6 is nice, but HA isn't balanced for it. So no, HA shouldn't be changed to 6v6. I'm all for 6v6 maps. Somewhere else, with maps and mechanics adapted to it.

DreamWind
07-09-2006, 08:24
Statement by who? Certainly not me. I recommend you reread the section of my text that you cited. Nowhere in there did I claim anything of the sort.

You said the game is made for 8v8 (which it is), but that doesn't mean that 8v8 is perfectly balanced and clearly superior to what 6v6 could become.


It changes the balance because players change on maps whose mechanics do not change. TA has no mechanics almost. But you don't have that on HA maps. Ok, a few maps are basic anihilation, but you also have 3 altars and 2 relics, all of which are different and require different utilities to play with any degree of effectiveness.

Many would argue that its these same altar and relic maps (mostly altar) that ruin the HA balance and metagame. Again, you have to make your build around these maps. TA you can bring whatever you want and have a chance at success. I'm not saying TA is better, I'm saying its metagame and balance are better because it doesn't have the HA mechanics (don't get me wrong I'd much rather play HA for the rewards though).


What? Of course that's luck. It's the chance that they are just going to have the thing you cannot counter.

Earlier you claimed that 8 man teams could pack counters to everything thrown at them and that you had been doing it for a while now. I don't think its possible in 8v8 or 6v6 personally.


You always want dynamic skills because they are by far the most effective sort. All reducing moves did was reduce the amount of dynamic skill slots you had in a team in a map sequence where you needed many.

Of course you want the best skills. I think 6v6 in HA was great because it made people think, "hmm...I need to get rid of some of these utility skills that I don't really need anyways in order to fit all the real necessities". Or it got them using skills they wouldn't have before. It also required a difference in play. In other words, it got people thinking about new things which is a good thing.

You again have a point about the map sequence not being the greatest though. I am curious, what would be your ideal maps setup/order for 8v8 and 6v6?


Nah, you could never do that. You do that you die.

Almost. When I play monk in HA and channeling makes me feel less skilled when you can cast essentially for free compared to GvG. I don't know if that speaks more to the smaller maps and 3-way maps of HA or just the power of channeling though so its not a great point.


Positioning matters a great deal in tombs as well.

Yea I'll give you that. I just say not as much as GvG.


Because of the same exact reasoning: the maps/skills are not designed for it. In a general sense 16v16 combat in a game built for it would work very well.

If Guild Wars was made to fit 16v16 it would have FAR less PvP players just because of the difficulty of gathering 16 players and keeping them together. That was my original joy of 6v6, the ease of getting and keeping teams together and starting quicker.


Not a prophet, a historian. It wasn't really all that hard to guess where the meta for 6v6 was going to go.

We don't know where it would have been in 6 months had it stayed, just as we don't know the GvG metagame 6 months from now. They will both assuredly be drastically different though just by sheer changes in the game.


I think you are confusing skill, skills, and strategy. Making a game less strategic does not affect technical player skill at all. You can have any degree of technical skill in games where absolutely no real strategy is required. That's sorta what 6v6 did.

Maybe. Guild Wars is a strategical game. I consider strategical ability to be part of your skill. If you know the correct strategical decision in most situations than you are a skilled player. I can't yet be convinced 6v6 was less skillful than 8v8 given its short lived history.


Reducing skills, or moves, is another thing that makes matches less strategic because it introduces more gambling. You simply bet against your odds of countering something you do not have the skills to deal with. This, in the end, is just luck. And luck is not strategic.

Thats not luck, its randomness. If we wanted Guild Wars to be a perfect strategic game like chess, you and your opponent would both be playing the exact same build on the exact same map every time. That would take the fun out of Guild Wars for most people though because they like those differences in builds...so people want SOME randomness. Also a quick note, I don't buy the luck is not strategic statement...look at poker.

Also, if you do not have the skills in your build to deal with another build, your play skill (or strategical skill) should help you overcome the difficult situation, and if it can't then the game is already broken anyways.

DreamWind
07-09-2006, 08:29
DreamWind... you keep agreeing than maps in HA are not designed for 6v6. Can't you just agree too that this is the problem and a valid reason why HA SHOULDN'T be 6v6?

You liked 6v6? Fine, i did too, it was refreshing. Ask for a 6v6 arena (which is likely to be introduced somewhere or ANet wouldn't have tested this).

Yea I agreed with it a while back. Then I started discussing possibility of new arena I hope Anet implements asap. Then I started talking about other random stuff with David that has nothing to do with the original topic. :laugh:

That being said, instead of completely replacing 8v8, I would like to see them just make a separate 6v6 HA or something until they make new maps for 6v6 (assuming they do which is still a big IF).

David Holtzman
07-09-2006, 09:33
You said the game is made for 8v8 (which it is), but that doesn't mean that 8v8 is perfectly balanced and clearly superior to what 6v6 could become.

Well, it is clearly superior in that the time it would take to balance the game for 6v6 is so enormous as to be unfeasible. You could certainly have 6v6, it would just be using skills intended for 8v8.


Many would argue that its these same altar and relic maps (mostly altar) that ruin the HA balance and metagame. Again, you have to make your build around these maps.

Even if true, it's not relevant. The point remains that the maps exist and take 8 players' worth of skills to succeed in consistently.


TA you can bring whatever you want and have a chance at success. I'm not saying TA is better, I'm saying its metagame and balance are better because it doesn't have the HA mechanics (don't get me wrong I'd much rather play HA for the rewards though).

You can't compare metagames really and say one is "better" or "worse". The metagame is just the general moves and builds that are popular. A hex heavy TA build isn't any better or worse than a smite centered HA build. As for mechanics, the more mechanics in a game the more strategic it is. The more strategic it has to be even. That's why GvG is more strategic: it has many mechanisms per map whereas HA has only one.


Earlier you claimed that 8 man teams could pack counters to everything thrown at them and that you had been doing it for a while now. I don't think its possible in 8v8 or 6v6 personally.

Haven't seen anything yet that we couldn't counter. We may not be able to counter it the first time we see it, but in general after we've thought it through we can apply our moves to the right places and counter pretty much anything.

But you can't do that in 6v6 because you're missing 16 skill slots, 2 of which can be elite utility. You simply cannot replicate that in a build with 48 skills.


Of course you want the best skills. I think 6v6 in HA was great because it made people think, "hmm...I need to get rid of some of these utility skills that I don't really need anyways in order to fit all the real necessities". Or it got them using skills they wouldn't have before. It also required a difference in play. In other words, it got people thinking about new things which is a good thing.

I didn't see any new things thought up. People ran what they always ran, and with regards to utility they basically cried and went without. We had a pretty mean 6v6 build, but it was nowhere near as strong as our current 8v8 build is.


You again have a point about the map sequence not being the greatest though. I am curious, what would be your ideal maps setup/order for 8v8 and 6v6?

Off the top of my head, I'd go for relics and anihilation matches. Altars take far too much utility to be dealt with effectively in 6v6 (we did it but at the expense of having zero relic match skills).


Almost. When I play monk in HA and channeling makes me feel less skilled when you can cast essentially for free compared to GvG. I don't know if that speaks more to the smaller maps and 3-way maps of HA or just the power of channeling though so its not a great point.

Well, there are far more objects in HA than in GvG. Aside from having 3 teams worth (in GvG you often don't even have 16 people in one spot, let alone 24) you have pets and spirits popping up all over. I recommend that if you really feel like you can do without 3 monks, you try out our 2 monk backline. We've been using it for a few months now, and we like it a lot.


Yea I'll give you that. I just say not as much as GvG.

It has nothing to do with the arena, it has to do with you having a 3 monk backline. Run 3 monks in GvG and you can run all over the place. iB did it with their dual surge dual war build.


If Guild Wars was made to fit 16v16 it would have FAR less PvP players just because of the difficulty of gathering 16 players and keeping them together. That was my original joy of 6v6, the ease of getting and keeping teams together and starting quicker.

Well, GW would have to be totally different, closer to WoW or Battlefield to support real teams of 16v16.


We don't know where it would have been in 6 months had it stayed, just as we don't know the GvG metagame 6 months from now. They will both assuredly be drastically different though just by sheer changes in the game.

Well, not really. There are only so many build concepts that work within the framework of HA. We ran into the last evolution several months ago, and it hasn't changed since. Since we know the evolution 8man builds went through, it was easy enough to see how 6man builds did the same thing (albeit far more quickly). We had just about caught up in 6 man to where AI and Nyog entered the HA scene in 8 man builds.


Maybe. Guild Wars is a strategical game. I consider strategical ability to be part of your skill. If you know the correct strategical decision in most situations than you are a skilled player. I can't yet be convinced 6v6 was less skillful than 8v8 given its short lived history.

Again, skill does not equate with strategy. 6v6 prized technical ability in much the same way that TA does. 8man arenas tend to reward strategic movement and sense.


Thats not luck, its randomness.

That's what luck is. Luck is just the value of chance falling in your favor.


If we wanted Guild Wars to be a perfect strategic game like chess, you and your opponent would both be playing the exact same build on the exact same map every time. That would take the fun out of Guild Wars for most people though because they like those differences in builds...so people want SOME randomness.[quote]

Some chance is a fine thing in a game. But only so much as improves the strategy, not so much that it inhibits it.

[quote] Also a quick note, I don't buy the luck is not strategic statement...look at poker.

Poker is an excellent example. The strategy in poker comes from being able to read other players and guess what they have. There is absolutely no strategy involved in pulling cards from the deck however. What you get is purely (or supposed to be at any rate) random.


Also, if you do not have the skills in your build to deal with another build, your play skill (or strategical skill) should help you overcome the difficult situation, and if it can't then the game is already broken anyways.

The HA mechanics aren't broken, they simply reward vastly different sorts of play. Broken Tower rewards static defense build and Sacred Temples rewards highly mobile offense.

DreamWind
07-09-2006, 10:14
Well, it is clearly superior in that the time it would take to balance the game for 6v6 is so enormous as to be unfeasible. You could certainly have 6v6, it would just be using skills intended for 8v8.

I'm still not convinced 6v6 is any less balanced than 8v8. Of course this is from limited 6v6 play and the assumption that 8v8 isn't completely balanced.


You can't compare metagames really and say one is "better" or "worse". The metagame is just the general moves and builds that are popular.

As opposed to better I would use more diverse. The HoH metagame is rather stale. Watching HoH observer you see about 3 builds and only a couple of them consistently. Sure there are modified builds every now and then but I would call it stale overall.


Haven't seen anything yet that we couldn't counter. We may not be able to counter it the first time we see it, but in general after we've thought it through we can apply our moves to the right places and counter pretty much anything. But you can't do that in 6v6 because you're missing 16 skill slots, 2 of which can be elite utility. You simply cannot replicate that in a build with 48 skills.

From the sounds of this, you countered it with your play rather than your build (which good teams do). Bad teams usually blame it all on their build. That goes along with my later point.


We had a pretty mean 6v6 build, but it was nowhere near as strong as our current 8v8 build is. I recommend that if you really feel like you can do without 3 monks, you try out our 2 monk backline. We've been using it for a few months now, and we like it a lot.

Well ya of course 8 man teams will be stronger. Doesn't neccessarily make for a better experience though. I'd like to hear about your build though, I'm running out of fun reasons to play in halls. (havent played since 6v6)


Well, not really. There are only so many build concepts that work within the framework of HA. We ran into the last evolution several months ago, and it hasn't changed since.

My biggest problem with HA. 6v6 spiced things up considerably while allowing more play which was even better.


Again, skill does not equate with strategy. 6v6 prized technical ability in much the same way that TA does. 8man arenas tend to reward strategic movement and sense.

Eh I guess we have a different definition of skill. I consider skill to basically be how good you are at something. Since Guild Wars is a stratigical game, I'd say if you employ good strategy in Guild Wars you are skilled at it.


Some chance is a fine thing in a game. But only so much as improves the strategy, not so much that it inhibits it.

Agree. I guess I'm not yet convinced 6v6 increased chance or inhibited strategy as much as claimed though. And even if it did, I think the benefits were too great to ignore.


There is absolutely no strategy involved in pulling cards from the deck however. What you get is purely (or supposed to be at any rate) random.

It is this randomness that makes many games great as long as its a good balance.


he HA mechanics aren't broken, they simply reward vastly different sorts of play. Broken Tower rewards static defense build and Sacred Temples rewards highly mobile offense.

I wasn't referring to the maps as much as the builds. If you go into a match and you cannot win the game solely because of the builds being played (you lose before the gate opens), than the game is broken.

Your skill (or strategy etc) should be able to outweigh the build disadvantage the majority of the time, and that disadvantage should be minimal. In other words, if the strength of builds are determining the wins as opposed to the players, than Guild Wars has a huge problem. I don't really feel like talking about whether GW is broken or not though...thats talked about year round. :laugh:

David Holtzman
07-09-2006, 11:06
I'm still not convinced 6v6 is any less balanced than 8v8. Of course this is from limited 6v6 play and the assumption that 8v8 isn't completely balanced.

Well, it's less balanced simply because the game is balanced around 8 man teams. Even poor balance would still be closer to 8 than 6.


As opposed to better I would use more diverse. The HoH metagame is rather stale. Watching HoH observer you see about 3 builds and only a couple of them consistently. Sure there are modified builds every now and then but I would call it stale overall.

The bad teams always run pretty much the same things in every arena. But to be honest, who cares what the bad teams run? The good teams run all sorts of things and in that respect the game is fairly diverse.


Well ya of course 8 man teams will be stronger. Doesn't neccessarily make for a better experience though. I'd like to hear about your build though, I'm running out of fun reasons to play in halls. (havent played since 6v6)

Well, 8 man teams are stronger but you have to balance that against the fact the teams they fight are stronger as well. Maintaining the analogy though, the 8 man build is far more effective. As for hearing about our build, you could always just watch us. At r63, we're on TV when we play. :wink:


My biggest problem with HA. 6v6 spiced things up considerably while allowing more play which was even better.

Well, the solution to that is more maps. I'd prefer maps added into a rotation, so there's say 10 types of each map and you're guaranteed 2 relics 3 altars (including Halls) and 4 anihilations. That would spice it up quite nicely in my opinion.


Eh I guess we have a different definition of skill. I consider skill to basically be how good you are at something. Since Guild Wars is a stratigical game, I'd say if you employ good strategy in Guild Wars you are skilled at it.

Well, player skill has more to do with how you use your character, how well you know the maps and skills, etc. Strategy has more to do with seeing the turning points of the game and making those points come about. RA or TA is a pretty good example of the former, but HA and GvG are more about the latter.


I wasn't referring to the maps as much as the builds. If you go into a match and you cannot win the game solely because of the builds being played (you lose before the gate opens), than the game is broken.

No, the game is only broken if you cannot take into the game the builds you need to win. If you take in a risk build and end up not winning, that is your fault, not the game's. 6v6 is an example of the former, regular HA an example often of the latter.


Your skill (or strategy etc) should be able to outweigh the build disadvantage the majority of the time, and that disadvantage should be minimal. In other words, if the strength of builds are determining the wins as opposed to the players, than Guild Wars has a huge problem.

Well, strategy has to revolve around game mechanics. Broken Tower is pretty set on the way that map has to be played. Player skill is all well and good, but without the right moves player skill won't matter at all. Take the best Street Fighter player and give him a character with no moves and he'll die to a beginner.

Buddah
07-09-2006, 15:06
But, the flaw in this argument is that you ALWAYS want those sort of skills. It has nothing to do with it being 6v6 or 4v4 or 123v123. You always want dynamic skills because they are by far the most effective sort. All reducing moves did was reduce the amount of dynamic skill slots you had in a team in a map sequence where you needed many.

No, only you personally want those skills. Though you make an arguement that everyone need them the reality is many of us can live with the two less player slots and the 16 less skills.

Patccmoi
07-09-2006, 15:30
Buddah, you say you can live without these. But can you live without these AND hold halls repeatedly? I mean sure, i can live without having a single defense skill in the build too. It won't crush my life. And i can make a build that will possibly win decently in the first maps with it. But if you go for a competitive game, you want realistic chances of winning all of it (i.e. win halls and hold it until someone manages to push you out), not just win the first maps and say 'bummer!' when you find a team you don't have the skills required to beat (in a certain map at least) and restart again, kinda like IWAY does.



Also kinda OT (sorry!), but David can you post that 2 monks backline you're talking of (or PM it to me). I didn't see iA play in HA in a while (i'm not a big HA guy, mostly GvG). Monk backline is the one thing i can't really design efficiently for HA cause while i have a good general idea of what's needed i didn't play monk enough to know what's absolutely required and what could potentially be replaced depending on the maps. I want to make a build for HA and could really help having a 2 monks backline.

Phoenixtech
07-09-2006, 17:36
I am kinda undecided on this, there's alot of advantages and dis-advantages with both. I do well in both 6man vs 8man, but I personally feel that alot of the 6 man games comes down to build vs build. There were so many games where I simple cleaned up the competition due to their lack of corpse control. There were alot of really top notch players/top 10 guilds that we flawlessed in less than 1 minute simply due to build vs build. I'll try to outline what I think are the pros and cons here.

6man:
Pro:
1) Faster team assembly, I rarely had to pug anyone during the whole weekend, it was pure flist. With 8 man sometimes your friends are already in groups or busy and sometimes I had to resort to pug for those last few spots.

2) More teams in HA means less skips. Now this could be a side effect of the double fame which drew in huge masses of people, however, if teams were easier to form and only needed 6, you would think there would be less skips vs 8 man teams. The less skips gave HA a true "tournament" feel where the teams gets progressively harder. More people in HA is always good, however, it may have just been a temporary euphoria of double fame that caused this.

3) No lame *** holding builds that relied on point #2 to skip to halls itself then "spike" the ghostly at 2:00 then cap.

Con:
1) 6 man simply does not give you the tools to win. Like I said before, build vs build. It gave HA a TA feeling and dampens the competitive spirit I think.

2) Alot less versatility in the builds = less build variation. If people where complaining about IWAY and Bspike with 8man, 6man is a total joke when it comes to FOTMs. 99% of the teams consisted of VIMWAY, Dual smite, Melandrus + Cripshot and Hex Heavy setups.

Overall, I am pretty undecided on whether I like 6v6 or 8v8 HA. I am currently leaning towords it staying 8v8 though. Just seemed better for ANET to put in a 6v6 arena in nightfall instead.

David Holtzman
07-09-2006, 20:40
No, only you personally want those skills. Though you make an arguement that everyone need them the reality is many of us can live with the two less player slots and the 16 less skills.

Live without them? Sure. Win without them? Not really. Watch the winners, and you can easily enough see what sort of moves they use. The poorer players do their thing of course, but who cares about what they run?

************************************************** ********


Also kinda OT (sorry!), but David can you post that 2 monks backline you're talking of (or PM it to me).

Sure, no problem. We run:

1 Mo/Me: Word, kiss, orison, insp hex, veil, channeling, heal party, seed
1 Mo/Me: RoF, mend cond, p spirit, guardian, channeling, insp hex, edrain, boon

Note that it's pretty tough to run with so few monks. With the exception of Flyy's team yesterday (which was running mostly players who've played with us) and MOJO I haven't seen anyone who could survive running only two monks.

Patccmoi
07-09-2006, 21:39
Sure, no problem. We run:

1 Mo/Me: Word, kiss, orison, insp hex, veil, channeling, heal party, seed
1 Mo/Me: RoF, mend cond, p spirit, guardian, channeling, insp hex, edrain, boon

Note that it's pretty tough to run with so few monks. With the exception of Flyy's team yesterday (which was running mostly players who've played with us) and MOJO I haven't seen anyone who could survive running only two monks.

Basically it's a boon-prot with Channeling instead of CoP and a WoH healer. What do you do against spikes? You got Infuse on a /Mo?

I'm conscious that you can't just drop the 3rd monk in any team and replace it and hope for the best. Obviously a 2 monks team need to have its survivability elsewhere either by spiking hard or having a good amount of defensive skills, and still it's likely not as easy. The 3 monks backline is quite 'comfortable'. But i know enough good monks to try to run it i think =p

David Holtzman
07-09-2006, 22:42
Basically it's a boon-prot with Channeling instead of CoP and a WoH healer. What do you do against spikes? You got Infuse on a /Mo?

Nah, infuse is like rez sigs, you only need 'em if you're not playing right. Just interrupt spikes and you're set. Infuse just isn't worth it. Too much energy to spend on infusing a guy then healing up the infuser. Better to just prevent damage and heal with RoF/WoH.


I'm conscious that you can't just drop the 3rd monk in any team and replace it and hope for the best. Obviously a 2 monks team need to have its survivability elsewhere either by spiking hard or having a good amount of defensive skills, and still it's likely not as easy. The 3 monks backline is quite 'comfortable'. But i know enough good monks to try to run it i think =p

2 monks is all you need if you have the skills for preventing damage and players who know how to avoid damage.

Cantos
08-09-2006, 02:48
Guild Wars is balanced for 8v8. No other team size is balanced to an acceptable degree.Why is this prima facie? I question the assertion. Beyond team size independant things like Warriors having the edge on everything else regarding offense, I believe Guild Wars has demonstrated reasonable balance from 8v8 to 4v4. The big difference from 8 player teams to 4 player teams is that spike builds become increasingly less viable as team sizes get smaller. That's all I can see regarding balance and team sizes.


DreamWind... you keep agreeing than maps in HA are not designed for 6v6. Can't you just agree too that this is the problem and a valid reason why HA SHOULDN'T be 6v6? Maps/system (long chain of victories leading to new, specific maps with different mechanics) aren't designed for it. Final.

You liked 6v6? Fine, i did too, it was refreshing. Ask for a 6v6 arena (which is likely to be introduced somewhere or ANet wouldn't have tested this). But realize that HA is DESIGNED for 8v8. If you agree that HA's maps aren't good for 6v6, you agree that HA isn't designed for 6v6 and there isn't much more to add...

You might say they are not the greatest for 8v8 (w/e you mean by that, no they are surely not perfect but nothing ever is really), but they are THOUGHT AND BALANCED for it. Enough different mechanics and game types to force a team of 8 players to bring different skills making them versatile in many situations. Why not 12/16/24/100? Because ANet decided on 8 and balanced it for 8. There isn't much more to say. It's not an act of god, it was a company's decision. Based on how much depth they wanted the game to have vs how many players they can fit and still make forming teams possible (good luck having a good competing base if you make the games 16 vs 16, most people would never form a team that isn't pretty much random). ANet decided on 8 and built/balanced around it. Wether it was a good choice is kinda irrelevant, the thing is that's what they chose. 6v6 is nice, but HA isn't balanced for it. So no, HA shouldn't be changed to 6v6. I'm all for 6v6 maps. Somewhere else, with maps and mechanics adapted to it.

Can you point out the particular configuration of stair, wall and bridge that makes Underworld unassailably non-viable for two teams of 6 to compete on? Do you believe that two teams of eight are perfectly suited to Burial Mounds, while two teams of six are perfectly unsuited? Do you conclude that Broken tower was THOUGHT AND BALANCED for teams of 8 only? Do you imagine that some Anet upper-up, when first conceiving of The Tomb of the Primeval King, addressed his minions, "Get out the SLIDE RULES gentlemen, I have a mind to create an eight versus eight mode, and we have to be careful to make every map UTTERLY UNBALANCED for team sizes of SIX!"?

DreamWind
08-09-2006, 03:27
The bad teams always run pretty much the same things in every arena. But to be honest, who cares what the bad teams run? The good teams run all sorts of things and in that respect the game is fairly diverse.

This happened in 6v6 as it does in 8v8. I don't see how it changes anything. Also, most good teams I see on observer don't run something original as opposed to a mod of an already established build.


As for hearing about our build, you could always just watch us. At r63, we're on TV when we play. :wink:

When do you play I never see ya.


Well, the solution to that is more maps. I'd prefer maps added into a rotation, so there's say 10 types of each map and you're guaranteed 2 relics 3 altars (including Halls) and 4 anihilations. That would spice it up quite nicely in my opinion.

I actually think there should be a set order of maps, but not the current order. I'd say something like (in no particular order) 4 annihilation, 1 altar, 2 relics, and a 4 way match like scarred. I think the big final map should be the 4 way as opposed to early in the tournament like scarred. Having HoH as a 4 minute 3 way altar map is just way too luck based.


Well, player skill has more to do with how you use your character, how well you know the maps and skills, etc. Strategy has more to do with seeing the turning points of the game and making those points come about.
Fair enough.


No, the game is only broken if you cannot take into the game the builds you need to win.

Nah, the game is broken if no matter what you bring you are at a disadvantage to another build in the field. Both 8v8 and 6v6 have minor cases of that, but it wasn't rampant in 6v6 like claimed.


Why is this prima facie? I question the assertion. I believe Guild Wars has demonstrated reasonable balance from 8v8 to 4v4.

"Get out the SLIDE RULES gentlemen, I have a mind to create an eight versus eight mode, and we have to be careful to make every map UTTERLY UNBALANCED for team sizes of SIX!"?

Completely agree. I think their point was that altar maps and relic maps aren't the greatest for 6v6. I agree somewhat, but I didn't like the maps in 8v8 so I don't care too much. Overall I completely agree with what you are saying though.

Inner Salbat
08-09-2006, 03:39
Sorry but I disagree with those that think it takes strategy away from the game, waiting for something to come into your agro bubble, and then count 3 2 1 a few times is not strategy, killing your enermy in less than a micro second is not strategy either.

HA has no more strategy in it than putting on a few of the right skills on the bar counting down, and zap you may as well learn the entire of HA into dragon ball arena for all the good it does you.

Frankly I think HA is the poor mans HA that doesn't have guild to go do some real PvP in GvG with.

So my vote is 6v6 perminant.

Patccmoi
08-09-2006, 04:41
Can you point out the particular configuration of stair, wall and bridge that makes Underworld unassailably non-viable for two teams of 6 to compete on? Do you believe that two teams of eight are perfectly suited to Burial Mounds, while two teams of six are perfectly unsuited? Do you conclude that Broken tower was THOUGHT AND BALANCED for teams of 8 only? Do you imagine that some Anet upper-up, when first conceiving of The Tomb of the Primeval King, addressed his minions, "Get out the SLIDE RULES gentlemen, I have a mind to create an eight versus eight mode, and we have to be careful to make every map UTTERLY UNBALANCED for team sizes of SIX!"?

I'm not talking about one certain map in particular. I'm talking about the whole system and mechanics. If you pick any single map, sure you can make 6v6 teams fight on it without a problem. But the problem is with fitting something for EVERY map type in a build. I don't think a good amount of builds can do that, honestly, with 6 men.

While i totally agree that 1 weekend is not enough to see what the metagame of 6v6 can involve into and what build can come out given time, it still gave a solid impression of luck given what you face or not. You can't really pack enough utility to face a full hex team, a blood spike team, a NR/Tranq interrupt team and a double smite team in a single build. And it kinda became rock-paper-scisor games. Some builds seemed more succesful overall (heavy interrupts mostly, especially on altar games) but it still seemed to end up often that you would face a build that you just couldn't handle. I don't really believe that the metagame would be as varied. It wouldn't be as stall as some seem to make it out to be, but i think that good teams in 6v6 HA wouldn't have a lot of options to choose from if they want to be fairly successful in all the different map types. HA was designed for 8v8. Maybe not every single map, but the whole system was. Make one unique to 6v6 and just leave HA alone!

nightrunner
08-09-2006, 04:48
Sorry but I disagree with those that think it takes strategy away from the game, waiting for something to come into your agro bubble, and then count 3 2 1 a few times is not strategy, killing your enermy in less than a micro second is not strategy either.

HA has no more strategy in it than putting on a few of the right skills on the bar counting down, and zap you may as well learn the entire of HA into dragon ball arena for all the good it does you.

Frankly I think HA is the poor mans HA that doesn't have guild to go do some real PvP in GvG with.


Of course there are people running mindless spike builds, ect, but that's not the point. I'm pretty sure everybody agrees that there will be PUGS running FoTM builds if HA is 6 player or 8 player. We're not talking about them, we're talking about what will happen to the players that do use strategy to win.

Inner Salbat
08-09-2006, 05:10
Of course there are people running mindless spike builds, ect, but that's not the point. I'm pretty sure everybody agrees that there will be PUGS running FoTM builds if HA is 6 player or 8 player. We're not talking about them, we're talking about what will happen to the players that do use strategy to win.

Well, my opinuion that I guess I was trying to point out is this, it doesn't matter if you use strategy or not, as I found during the 6v6 until your tied into one of the FOTM builds you don't stand a chance in hell.

You can't just roll up a team that has some sort of balance to it and expect to win or even do well, while yes you can win with a balanced team or with good strategy, your serioursly hampered by the problem of these 'gimmiks' that right around, and chances are be it 6v6 or 8v8 your going to run into them, and as prepared as you could be, your likely to be missing something, sooner or later, and probably sooner.

This is why I like GvG over HA any day, while people run the same gimmiks in HA that they do in GvG they do it less so, maybe this is because the high ranked guilds will just own them with it, who knows.

nightrunner
08-09-2006, 06:02
This is why I like GvG over HA any day, while people run the same gimmiks in HA that they do in GvG they do it less so, maybe this is because the high ranked guilds will just own them with it, who knows.

Well, most of us agree being successful in the GvG ladder takes more strategy than winning in HA. But again, that's not the argument.



You can't just roll up a team that has some sort of balance to it and expect to win or even do well, while yes you can win with a balanced team or with good strategy, your serioursly hampered by the problem of these 'gimmiks' that right around, and chances are be it 6v6 or 8v8 your going to run into them, and as prepared as you could be, your likely to be missing something, sooner or later, and probably sooner.

Of course you're going to run into a build that has an advantage over yours. But the point is, you're more likely to have something that you can use against it if you have 64 skill slots to work with instead of 48. Sure, even with 64 skill slots, you can't be well prepared against every single build. But chopping off those 16 slots certainly doesn't help.

Cantos
08-09-2006, 06:24
I'm not talking about one certain map in particular. I'm talking about the whole system and mechanics. [...]
While i totally agree that 1 weekend is not enough to see what the metagame of 6v6 can involve into and what build can come out given time, it still gave a solid impression of luck given what you face or not. Ok. I understand what you mean now, but I would rather believe there is more flexibility in 6 player builds than could possibly be unearthed in one weekend, and that problems of being unable to prepare for gimmicks (map gimmicks or otherwise) would evaporate in time.

Inner Salbat
08-09-2006, 06:39
Of course you're going to run into a build that has an advantage over yours. But the point is, you're more likely to have something that you can use against it if you have 64 skill slots to work with instead of 48. Sure, even with 64 skill slots, you can't be well prepared against every single build. But chopping off those 16 slots certainly doesn't help.

Sorry but that makes no logical sence, if it was 6v8 yes you'd have a point but it's 48 slots vs 48 slots, it makes no differents.

DreamWind
08-09-2006, 06:47
Of course you're going to run into a build that has an advantage over yours. But the point is, you're more likely to have something that you can use against it if you have 64 skill slots to work with instead of 48. Sure, even with 64 skill slots, you can't be well prepared against every single build. But chopping off those 16 slots certainly doesn't help.

I doubt this. It was brought up earlier that its 48v48 skills, not 64v64. So you have less to prepare for. In 8v8 you have more to prepare for so you NEED more matchup skills.

Also in 8v8, you don't need 16 slots dedicated solely to specific matchups. In fact out of those 16 there is probably less than half dedicated to specific matchups. Most of those 16 slots are filled up with utility skills that could easily be replaced in a 6v6 situation with other more multidimensional skills.

nightrunner
08-09-2006, 06:55
Sorry but that makes no logical sence, if it was 6v8 yes you'd have a point but it's 48 slots vs 48 slots, it makes no differents.

Um. I have no idea what you just said. There is no 6v8, and I never said anything about 6v8.

What I'm saying is that since you don't know what builds you're going to play against, your build has to have the capability of countering a variety of builds if you want to win. If I have 8 character slots to work with, then I can counter more builds. If I have 6 character slots to work with, then I can't counter as many. Simple as that.



I doubt this. It was brought up earlier that its 48v48 skills, not 64v64. So you have less to prepare for. In 8v8 you have more to prepare for so you NEED more matchup skills.

I disagree. Sure, those builds are also reduced by two players, but they're still essentially the same builds, and you still need to defend against their strengths. Just because Rspike loses a spiker and a bonder, or whatever, doesn't mean I don't need something to counter spike.



Also in 8v8, you don't need 16 slots dedicated solely to specific matchups. In fact out of those 16 there is probably less than half dedicated to specific matchups. Most of those 16 slots are filled up with utility skills that could easily be replaced in a 6v6 situation with other more multidimensional skills.

I actually can't think of very many skills that people bring to deal with one, specific build. A Warder might be a great counter to an IWAY team, but really, they're a good counter vs any melee, or just ground control in general, and my build will have to work in a lot of warrior hate to make up for his loss. And it's not just skill slots, it's character slots - if you want to keep those wards, you're going to have to give up another character's secondary for /E.

To clarify (I hope) I'll say that pretty much every skill is already multi-use, or so important that it's one use justifies it's place in the build. You can't really just say "ok, I'm going to get rid of 16 skills that only work against 1 build" because there aren't 16 skills that have 1 use.

Inner Salbat
08-09-2006, 07:34
Um. I have no idea what you just said. There is no 6v8, and I never said anything about 6v8.

What I'm saying is that since you don't know what builds you're going to play against, your build has to have the capability of countering a variety of builds if you want to win. If I have 8 character slots to work with, then I can counter more builds. If I have 6 character slots to work with, then I can't counter as many. Simple as that.

Sure, but what your implying is that the other team some how has more than you do which they don't it's equal on both sides.

So if it's 6v6 or 8v8 it doesn't matter, if it did matter that much then this game is seriously unbalanced which it doesn't appear to be, at least not on the skill level, I'm still an advocate that you should not be allow more than 2 of the same class in any team by mandate of the game forcing this, then you could wave good bye to a lot of gimmiks, and people would actually have to learn 2 play.

nightrunner
08-09-2006, 07:45
Sure, but what your implying is that the other team some how has more than you do which they don't it's equal on both sides.


No. I am certainly not implying that. I fully realize that my team will have 6 players, and that their team will have 6 players. The imbalance is that their build may have a strength that I might not be able to counter, a warrior heavy team vs a caster team, for example (yes, I know they will both have 6 players). If both of our teams had 8 players, then yes, they might be even more warrior heavy, but I also might have something like snares, whose use I could maximize to even out the playing field.

That's where the skill comes into play - a good team will be able to overcome the warrior heavy team by maximizing what they have. But a good team can't do that if they don't have something to start with.

Inner Salbat
08-09-2006, 09:21
No. I am certainly not implying that. I fully realize that my team will have 6 players, and that their team will have 6 players. The imbalance is that their build may have a strength that I might not be able to counter, a warrior heavy team vs a caster team, for example (yes, I know they will both have 6 players). If both of our teams had 8 players, then yes, they might be even more warrior heavy, but I also might have something like snares, whose use I could maximize to even out the playing field.

That's where the skill comes into play - a good team will be able to overcome the warrior heavy team by maximizing what they have. But a good team can't do that if they don't have something to start with.

Oh good, I'm glad we finally under stand each other then, in that case then I'd agree with you that having 8v8 is more benificial for bringing more counters.

I don't think I'll ever come to terms with people that play FOTM or in some cases FOTY!, it makes the game so stale and boring I swear while I was running Vim, I fell asleep one time and still won, and that kind of interaction with a came is really dull.

Mathius Clarkus
11-09-2006, 22:12
i would like it to remain 6v6 - as said earlier it gives you more choice and less time looking for groups - which in HA is a big improvement. It also makes each player more important and lets smaller guilds try its hand along with the bigger - its a good way to get pve players into pvp.

xposthumanx
12-09-2006, 09:34
I will literally quit playing guild wars if they change it permanently to 6v6.

Inner Salbat
12-09-2006, 12:35
I will literally quit playing guild wars if they change it permanently to 6v6.

<sarcasm> I'm sure you'll be really missed </sarcasm>

Tucks
12-09-2006, 14:32
<sarcasm> I'm sure you'll be really missed </sarcasm>

<serious>I'm sure you are truly an idiot.</serious>

Nekretaal
12-09-2006, 15:56
So, last night I'm farming fame points on a secondary account with unranked no-voice chat ViMWAY group. I'm keeping this account separate from my first account, and It doesnt have a friend list yet. The time is almost midnight EST (8:45pm PST)

Anyways... There are only one and a half districts open on the American server, and 3 in the international server. Finding IWAYs turns aout be a problem but we finally get a group. Here's what happens to me last night:

(1) First attempt to beat the Zaichen ends when new player casts spirits and starts the timer, everybody resigns

(2) Second attempt to beat the timer ends when new player casts spirits and starts the time, everybody reigns.

(3) Third attempt, we beat the Zaichen and get owned by Bloodspike.

(4) Fourth attempt we beat the zaichen in 1:05 min, and an IWAY ragequits. We beat a balanced team, and then a VimWay. We skip all the way to hall of heroes and get owned.

(5) Fifth attempt we beat the zaichen in 34 seconds, win one match and lose the next match.

(6) Sixth attempt. It takes us over a minute to beat the Zaichen, but we skip all the way to the hall of heroes and get owned.

(7) Seventh attempt. We win a match against A VimWAY, then skip all the way to the Hall of heroes and get owned.

(8) Eight attempt. We beat the zaichen in 56 seconds even though new player started the timer early, then get owned by a balanced group. I'm done for the night.

Needless to say it was an awful group. Our record was 4-5 and our new players made plenty of rookie and noob mistakes. One of our IWAYS said she would take spirint but took apply poison instead. We only earned 5 fame in two hours of play, but saw hall of heroes three times.

This makes me sad. I remember a time when the competition wasnt so pathetic. Meanwhile, at oune point during the night, I noticed that one guy forming a rank 6++ group was still waiting and turning invites, even though I'd been to hall of heroes twice during the period... Any pathetic group could have gone to halls. We did! (And this was primetime on the West coast of USA).

People here on the boards are talking about adding new maps to HA, but who cares about that when competition is so poor and so scarce.

It dawned on me: The solution to every problem in HA: Rank grind/rank griefing / elitism / poor competition / IWAY & non diverse builds... all of that can be solved with one key factor: More players!!!

HA is slowly dying. A noob ViM group has no business going to Hall of heroes three times in 2 hours with a 4-5 record during primetime.

HA probably will see new players with the new game, but I submit that it is in a serious need of new-player friendly reforms, or guild wars pvp is dead. A bunch of people who buy nightfall for the pvp reputation do not need to run into the elitist buzzsaw, cookie cutter builds (that require skills not in the game they bought like Vim and IWAY), and skips to halls.

Even last night, the R3++ players far outnumbered the unrated players in the american and international districts. That is not healthy for a game that needs a constant influx of new players.

Six player teams is maybe a start. The one and a half districts of americans and three international district would at least have meant more teams... more teams... no absurd skips to hall of heroes for noob vimways. Something serious needs to be done.

EcHoMaN
12-09-2006, 19:22
Six player teams is maybe a start. The one and a half districts of americans and three international district would at least have meant more teams... more teams... no absurd skips to hall of heroes for noob vimways. Something serious needs to be done.

6 Player teams didn't attract all those people, it was the double fame. Skips happen all the time, without a doubt if we had the number of teams who skipped and those who actually made it to halls, the skips would be in the lead. IMO 6vs6 just made it harder to cope with the gimmik builds anyways.

Nekretaal
12-09-2006, 19:52
6 Player teams didn't attract all those people, it was the double fame. Skips happen all the time, without a doubt if we had the number of teams who skipped and those who actually made it to halls, the skips would be in the lead. IMO 6vs6 just made it harder to cope with the gimmik builds anyways.

I agree 100%. The double fame attracted those people.

However, if parties were scaled down to 6 people in a party and nothing else change, and 240 people total are playing at a given moment... then that means that there are 40 teams playing instead of 30 teams playing... and that in itself is a big improvement.

It's not a complete solution, but maybe its a start.

Santax
12-09-2006, 21:46
Please, no.

Does this look familiar?

"LFP TOUCHER TEAM"

"R2 IWAY WAR LFG NO NOOBS"

Inner Salbat
12-09-2006, 23:23
<serious>I'm sure you are truly an idiot.</serious>

I don't really give a flying s!@# what you think of me.



(1) First attempt to beat the Zaichen ends when new player casts spirits and starts the timer, everybody resigns

(2) Second attempt to beat the timer ends when new player casts spirits and starts the time, everybody reigns.

(3) Third attempt, we beat the Zaichen and get owned by Bloodspike.

(4) Fourth attempt we beat the zaichen in 1:05 min, and an IWAY ragequits. We beat a balanced team, and then a VimWay. We skip all the way to hall of heroes and get owned.

(5) Fifth attempt we beat the zaichen in 34 seconds, win one match and lose the next match.

(6) Sixth attempt. It takes us over a minute to beat the Zaichen, but we skip all the way to the hall of heroes and get owned.

(7) Seventh attempt. We win a match against A VimWAY, then skip all the way to the Hall of heroes and get owned.

(8) Eight attempt. We beat the zaichen in 56 seconds even though new player started the timer early, then get owned by a balanced group. I'm done for the night.

Yup that pretty much sums it up, and is the reason you won't catch me in halls unless, my entire guild & or alliance members are so bored they have nothing else to do but go to HA.

Actually I didn't go for the double fame, I went for the 6v6 to see how it changed things about, and the result was pleasing to a degree, I enjoyed it better than 8v8 that's for sure, as is evadent in my fame points, before the weekend was 11, after it was 167 in normal fame that would be 84 points gained in 3-4 days, rather than the 11 I had for 14 months before hand, because I just refuse to go there, with it 8v8 / elitism / rank snobery / etc.

While I understand why people like to group with ranked players, because there is a degree of asurance that you'll gain some more fame, and likely progress futher, I still disagree with the mentality.