PDA

View Full Version : HA Vetting Procedure: More Democracy in Halls.



Lord Helmos
30-03-2007, 16:11
Let's face it, Halls is in bad shape right now. Players feel that their voices aren't being heard. Halls is emptier now than its ever been in Gwars history. (If we are lucky we get 2 districts on the American server on a busy day.)

Anyway there have been alot of changes to halls, some likable, many hatable (kill count, party size changes, heros, "skill balances.")

On wiki there is a vetting procedure that the communities provides in order to justify whether a build is viable or just a gimmick. Why not apply the same principle to halls? Why not have ideas advocated to the audience of the game before making a sudden change to halls?

The player community is the audience halls and the game is directed to. We already have design a weapon contests, brand the boss, and other such world shaping options from ANET. However there is little say players have in how skills in Halls and the mechanics of high level PvP are handled.

Why not have a community vetting procedure to changes in HA? Throwing the idea or balances to the community first can reveal unforseen problems with the change that can be pointed out by senior players and casual ones (Like Killstealing). A simple vote can tell the difference between a good change, and something that has the potential to outrage the HA community.

Granted the community response wont always be so peachy, but halls would be in alot better shape as it is now.

Something along the lines of this might prevent something like a second IWAY, BoA, and rediculous meta builds like "Neoway" from breaking halls.

I mean seriously, Halls is pretty bad. It all over the forums, ALL of them. HA is almost out of time, and frankly people are just starting not to play it anymore.

~More Democracy in Halls Ftw~

KicknDave
30-03-2007, 23:01
Well this won't happen. If you consider the WHOLE PvP community, including those who don't use forums, this will never happen. Also, given the change to 8v8, I wouldn't draw conclusions. The reason why American districts(and I'm American myself) are low on people is because their too busy complaining to someone or something about how much the game sucks because they can't win. The reason Europe wins all the time is because they play the game.

Ranger Nietzsche
30-03-2007, 23:53
my voice is being heard, dunno what you're talking about.

I wanted 8v8 for 4 months and got it.

I wanted kill counts and got them.

I wanted rotating Halls maps and got them.

Maybe yours isn't heard because your voice isn't in agreement with most of the community?

Or maybe its because you have posted all of SIX times here.

Wet One
31-03-2007, 00:43
Dont take this as a flame... but maybe 1 in 1000 groups that leaves from AD anything will actually win halls lol... I have been playing the game for 22 months now and can honestly say i have not left from an AD in at least 18 months... it used to be all the nubby americans were in AD's and thats why there were 5 or 6 ad's... the ID's no one really knew too much about and there would be 1 to 2 groups forming usually R7 or 8 cause not too many people were even R9 at the time...

If you must try and find more people go to the international districts... come on everyone is doing it.. there are spams in there for everything from unranked groups to r3 all the way up to R11+ etc..

Wuzzman
04-04-2007, 02:15
America sucks and I'm am an American.

nightrunner
04-04-2007, 06:48
America sucks and I'm am an American.

I lol'd.

Anyway, the Devs have posted polls on forums about HA changes before. A lot of them ended up being skewed because of people that didn't think the question through, or were simply ignorant, voted.

The Moon
05-04-2007, 13:54
If we are lucky we get 2 districts on the American server on a busy day.

Go to the International districts, most of the time there are 4.



Something along the lines of this might prevent something like a second IWAY, BoA, and rediculous meta builds like "Neoway" from breaking halls.

Why are people always complaining about meta builds? Most of the time they can easily be beaten. That some people can't win is not a reason to call for Nerf or changes to HA.
Above all ,it IS a tournament; there will always be teams that lose and teams that win, nothing you can and should change about that.

B Ephekt
05-04-2007, 21:04
my voice is being heard, dunno what you're talking about.

I wanted 8v8 for 4 months and got it.

I wanted kill counts and got them.

I wanted rotating Halls maps and got them.

Maybe yours isn't heard because your voice isn't in agreement with most of the community?

Or maybe its because you have posted all of SIX times here.
More like you're in a guild with devs in it, and he's some random player.

Ranger Nietzsche
05-04-2007, 23:38
seriously, the guy had 6 posts when he started this thread.

thats no way to get your opinion heard.

shardfenix
06-04-2007, 06:12
Although you have good intentions, making high-end pvp a democracy would only make things worse. Think of how many people in GW would say they are primarily playing for PvP. Of those players, how many of them are good? Of those players, how many of them are intelligent? Of those players, how many of them know how to balance a game? I doubt if the number would even reach 100. We don't want another "election 2004" ruining HA.

All we need is more good skill balances.

As for HA, take out the maps that don't require skill. This means: 3 way kill count, 3 way relics, and alliance battles. 1v1 kill count and King of the Hill are ftw.

While I'm here, if you're afraid to nerf kill count because it will cause more teams to run defensive builds, why not bring back scarred earth 4 way, make it kill count, and the first team to wipe their opponents or to mercy rule the game wins. That way "holding" builds will almost never win.


seriously, the guy had 6 posts when he started this thread.

thats no way to get your opinion heard.
And being arrogant is no way to make your guild look good. This guy with 6 posts has put more intelligent sentences in one post than you have in all of GWonline.

Ace Bear
06-04-2007, 07:17
seriously, the guy had 6 posts when he started this thread.

thats no way to get your opinion heard.
The number of your posts does not properly show off your intelligence nor is your reasoning worse for the lack of said posts grasshopper.

Old Chinese saying.

Ranger Nietzsche
06-04-2007, 07:27
yeah but he's complaining that ANet isn't giving him what he wants.


Well, maybe he should let ANet know what he wants by POSTING ABOUT IT.

You shouldn't complain that Anet hasn't listned to you in the past year if you haven't bothered to try and tell them.

Aiiane
07-04-2007, 00:14
The reason vetting procedures work for things like builds is because there's a fairly definite answer that is usually fairly simple to agree on - either a build is at least moderately viable, or it's not, and most people can agree on whether the build in question is the former or the latter. They may not prefer whatever style the build uses, but whether or not it can be function is pretty concrete.

Game design, on the other hand, is anything but concrete. If nothing else, the lively debate that goes on in just about every forum for multiplayer online games about potential changes should be proof of that. It's neigh-impossible to reach a consensus.

Lord Helmos
07-04-2007, 02:42
yeah but he's complaining that ANet isn't giving him what he wants.


Well, maybe he should let ANet know what he wants by POSTING ABOUT IT.

You shouldn't complain that Anet hasn't listned to you in the past year if you haven't bothered to try and tell them.

And in anywhere in my OP have a asked for anything specific? No im simply introducing an idea of giving the community some say in what goes in a skill balance before it is finally implemented. Having some advanced notice before suddenly logging on and finding everything Haxed was my point. Don't put words in my mouth, thats simply ignorance. Where in my OP have I complained about a specific problem that "I" wanted. I simple introduced an idea and gave an example.

Anyway the whole point of this is void now because Gaile did post the skill balances on this site and on Guildwarsguru before they were released permantantly. That is what I was going for and Anet has implemented the idea I was presenting. The skills balances were finalized as they were posted, but there was some good feedback and a giant flame fest on soul reaping. This is what I was talking about about by advanced notice and letting us have some say. Apparantly ANET is now alot more concerned with the community views on balances and is giving us lots of heads up on whats going on. I can't ask for more.

Also don't ever denounce someones voice on the amounts of posts they have had in the forums. If you must know I was at forgerunner status at Guildwarsguru before moving here.

In fact the whole reason that I moved from that forum to this one is because I had a huge problem with the way that the mods at guru treated posts. The mods on here are MUCH better and so is the board.

Lord Helmos
07-04-2007, 02:50
The reason vetting procedures work for things like builds is because there's a fairly definite answer that is usually fairly simple to agree on - either a build is at least moderately viable, or it's not, and most people can agree on whether the build in question is the former or the latter. They may not prefer whatever style the build uses, but whether or not it can be function is pretty concrete.

Game design, on the other hand, is anything but concrete. If nothing else, the lively debate that goes on in just about every forum for multiplayer online games about potential changes should be proof of that. It's neigh-impossible to reach a consensus.

I agree, but a simple post of advanced notice concerning a skill balance was all I was really asking for. And we got it. The skill balance before this one was very sudden, and very destructive. Granted the community, as variated as it is with newer and advanced players, will NEVER reach a concensus. However the overall point was to at least have the community be able to vett an opinion that the designs can look at before throwing out a sudden change. Although alot of the arguements might be trash, there might be one golden idea that they might have missed that can help the skill balance go over much smoother.

I believe that ANET is beginning to understand the importance of what the community has to say in terms of game balance. Granted they know what they are doing, but people make mistakes too, including pro-coders and people paid to think about this stuff. Sometimes all that is needed is a one line idea that might solve a very prominent issue in the game. The community is a possible venue in that solution.

Granted I would never ask the designs to do EVERYTHING the community says, that would make guildwars a disaster. However, just listening, letting us know we have been heard, and both the community and the designers exchanging ideas will result in a much better game. They dont even have to implement ANY ideas we throw out, but seeing those ideas might add some insight on how to fix a relevant issue.

With this skill balance, this exact process has been followed. This april skill balance has been accepted much better than the last and with fewer issues. This is better for but us and ANET. So ty to them for listening to what we had to say.

Aiiane
07-04-2007, 05:57
They've present balance changes for community testing at least once before, which is probably why people were confused, and thought you were asking for more. This update isn't the first time they've done it.

Mathius Clarkus
09-06-2007, 23:47
some kind of voting precedure on the gw website would give changes legitimacy and stop hate posts. It would also make sure most people want the changes and mean gw do better especially as it will be the first to do so. Afterall we payed for the game and thus anets salaries, so we should have a say not have what is best for us decided by someone else.

however it may make some unpopular but neccessary decisions hard to do like nurfing iway was. Also if people demand a poll all the time it would slow things down and mean staff spend all their time making changes that may not be implemented perhaps making them reluctant to tinker...

hmm that Politics AS level was usefull afterall even if i did badly in it...

B Ephekt
11-06-2007, 03:07
I doubt the HA community even knows what's good for HA, especially since most of the current community are 6v6 players. The remaining few that have been around for a while just want holding back so they can get easy wins and farm their ranks like they used to do.

Honestly, I don't care about HA anymore. It was bad before 6v6; you just didn't realize it. Guess what, it's bad now too, the mechanics just highlight the flaws for those slower/newer players.

I'm fine with HA being ignored right now, the arena was largely a failure, and if it means GvG will get more attention, I'm all for it.

Ranger Nietzsche
11-06-2007, 05:16
Games aren't democracies, even MMORPGs. If we let the majority vote on stuff more likely everyone would quit. Because no one is in the majority on every single issue.