Feedback talk:User/Vincent E V A N/How to Fix Alliance Battles

I like the "if you win this many times, the map changes; if no one wins this many times, the map changes after x time" idea, but I dislike the cooldown. IMO, removing that would help further the tipping of the scales of balance - if Luxons receive 70 wins in under 3 hours, the map change (supposedly) gives Kurzicks an advantage - so lets say the map is at Saltspray Beach, 70 Luxon wins vs 50 Kurzick wins, then another 70 Lux wins vs 60 Kurz wins - next map (Ancestral Lands), Kurzicks get a bigger advantage. The map changes become more dynamic, change faster, thus changing the pace of AB faster and becoming less stale per visit one takes. It also makes wanting to win/lose maps more important the immediate rather than in the long run because every single match will count. Since you're using the Kurz/Lux PvE skill icons for these, why not use both Spear of Fury icons for that - one side gets one icon? Just a thought. We already have a title (which is hard to max like any PvP title), we don't need another; and the way to max the one you propose is just a "loltooeasymeansnothing" kind of title. Double no on the emote - if anything related to AB gets an emote, max Kurz/Lux titles should get an emote for summoning Saint Viktor and Archemorus respectively.
 * Map rotation
 * Call To Arms
 * New Title

Other than that stuff, I love this suggestion. Although I'd personally figure a way to make the goals per map different so that there's three goals (Ancestral/Kanaai gets one goal; Grenz/Etnaran get a second goal; Saltspray gets a third) to make the different maps more than a change of which way one goes. -- Konig / talk 20:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

]] Exactly what I said above, if the maps are stuck in place for a period of time, there's going to be boredom because you're doing the same map - therefore same strategy - over and over. 4 hours or having a cooldown of mapchange will keep that up. Secondly, having the same goal time and time again makes it boring - having different goals per map rather than "get 500 points or cap all shrines" for every map would be more interesting. -- Konig / talk 21:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the response. Honestly, the time may change, and the more I think about it, the less longer the intervals are, the more "flavor" AB can be. Seeing everything is possible to change, maybe, on a 24-hour clock, it could be 3 hour intervals, changing 8 times per day. In a sense, less is more, but it's best to keep it moving not so much.
 * As for the skill icons, those were moreso just examples rather than what I actually wanted to them to be. To save time, if they wanted to do that, they could.
 * To an extent, I agree with you with the titles. All the do, essentially, is encourage grinding. If it wasn't implemented, really, the only thing that would hurt AB would possibly lose it's attraction to some title hunters.
 * If it was implemented, it would be like the gladiator rank, only for show. The main objective of that was being part of the rewards section which is primarily to attract players thus giving AB a larger playerbase in order for more matches to be played, and so forth. Vincent Evan [Air Henchman] 21:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * A title "only for show" is not a good title - it's just GWAMM fodder and would be the only reason people would care about it. It'd be better to increase the ability to gain the Kurz/Lux titles that exist already than to practically give 2 titles from one PvP format. -- Konig / talk 21:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * To help prevent splitting discussion up: [[User_talk:Konig_Des_Todes#Alliance_Battles|"I also noticed that you added that it but said that there is still a stagnation of what people do. May I ask exactly what you mean?"
 * Relic runs in AB would be amazing, although a lot of adjustments would be required. Kill count is certainly another idea. The only issue with such things is that it moves AB from a format that actually allows casual game play to a more punishing, serious format, which might repel any newcomers. I'm sure there's some possible map objectives that wouldn't do this, though. 161.184.140.160 21:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I was thinking more something along the lines of PvPvE - relic runs in huge maps would need a lot of change, kill count's practically the same as now but making the matches longer. I have a couple ideas in my head, but they need working out a bit more (one idea was to make Kanaai/Ancestral to be a bit like GvG-esque but on defenders only, but I realize that may be a bit too close to FA for people's tastes). -- Konig / talk 22:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I like the ideas you have here, but a few things that spring to mind: -- Chieftain  Alex 21:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Map Rotation: This 70 win stuff sounds like it would result in the map staying the same if its the same old Luxon/Kurzick split you describe from Ancestral Lands. Perhaps it should reset to Saltspray Beach after ~500 games or something?
 * NPC Skillbars: Probably don't want any snare inflicting npcs - movement reduction isn't very fun.
 * Saltspray Dragon: Looks overpowered with those Corrupt esque skills but not sure how you'd go about making it more important. Maybe when you capture the shrine you avoid being attacked by the randomly appearing dragon? Or the dragon rampages around and attacks an opponents shrine every 60 seconds?
 * Faction reward: Good idea to beef the rewards up.
 * Emote! - probably not an actual emote, but a slight glow would be awesome :p (blue for kurz and red for lux - like you get outside Leviathan pits in Gyala hatchery) - I'd have the brightness of the effect scale with the number of wins you've had :)


 * @ Konig,

I see, essentially, a temporary playerbase would not be good in the long run. That is true. As for the the two titles in one format, I see what you mean, however, there are already many other alternatives to accumulating faction, which honestly, that field, would not hurt it as much as it would being GWAMM fodder. On the same note, with the proposed changes in the accumulation of faction, that will actually help people with their allegience rank, which I believe, we can agree is good.

As for the map rotation, it I honestly do not see how habitual it will be for one map to be stuck on one side. With what I call the "clock and counter" system, it will be made to change that map consistantly, 6 or 8 times per day. With the environmental buffs given to the players fighting on their home turf, that will essentially give a higher advantage in both capping and fighting in AB. I wanted them to be in place so that there is a clear advantage for the player, but also to make it so the invading team still has a the slight ability to win. If they do, more faction for them.

The game mechanics themselves, will be very hard to change. As the maps are set up, it is highly unlikely that if we were to have either a GvG system implemented, or possible gametypes from HA, that they would work effectively with how the map is set up. I did think of this however, but I came to the consensus that if this were added, it would have a higher possibility of defeating the purpose of this suggestion, to make it more map-friendly and more of an incentive to play through rewards, skill updates, and the buffs. Would you have any idea of what gametype might be added that could possibly make this arena more fun, I am open to hear suggestions to make this one much better.


 * @ IP, what you said about why relic running would fail in AB is absolutely true. We must also remember that the size of the map is relatively large. It would take a while for the relic points to add up, and with that, there would be a much larger focus of making sure the relic would reach the goal, thus making AB less fun for many, thank you for the feedback.


 * @ Alex,

The point of snares is one of many when I updated the NPCs. I wanted to update their skills so that when capping, it has the ability to defeat solo cappers much more, and also promote a competitive-yet-casual form of challenge. With the updated skills, while not having their full bar utilized, will force a somewhat higher learning curve for players. It will take some to get accustomed to, but for many, such as myself, understand that this will be no such worry.

As for the dragon part, I can see how it looks overpowered, and honestly, I should the point of how the skills WILL work besides their descriptions. For the dragon's teleport, there would be an aftercast after being teleported, like Shadow Walk for the Assassin. With that, after they cast one spell, they also have to deal with the after cast of that, therefore, it is only limited to I believe two spells only. (If my math is correct.) The other skill is supposed to be like an attunement spell for elementalists, essentially. It provides optimal energy return and 5 pips of regeneration, which, when confronted by a team, isn't broken.

Faction: Thank you, the grand scheme from this is to give players an incentive to push into one another's territory to accumulate more faction. With it being doubled as it is, I believe that many players will find it fun to have that drive to try to push into the enemy homeland to get the most faction they can. With that, (the bast part about it) the best part behind is how the game gives advantage to the underdog, to push them out, to drive the other team to their homeland. Kind of like a magnet, where an outside force moves the object one way, where the magnet naturally pulls it back. I want Ancestral Lands and Kaanai Canyon to only be played on when the Luxons/Kurzicks (respectively) have shown a strong effort to get there, rather than have it be there all day, which no one likes.

As for an emote, the title system was just a thought, rather than having it be part of the New Deal. One of the objectives was to advertise for a larger player base, which, for title hunters, would see. Although, as Konig said, it would act as GWAMM fodder, which means, that player base would be relatively to how many actually will stay once they get their title, therefore, no positive impact would be made on AB's player base. Vincent Evan [Air Henchman] 22:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I have a similar suggestion.
What do you think? &mdash; Raine Valen    22:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (For clarity, I'm incorporating both Raine's and Vincent's ideas)While the idea of a ladder would be pretty neat, the fact remains that AB simply doesn't have enough of a player base to constitute any kind of effective rating or matchmaking system. As suggested, the lure of higher reward and title tends to be the greatest pull toward increasing activity to casual players and title hunters. So hypothetically, lets say that this is somehow implemented. There still leaves a significant gap between casual and more serious AB'rs.
 * Higher rated AB'rs will constantly either be paired with an inexperienced enemy on a handicapped map or on the normal rotation with similar rated enemies. This means that on a day where there is many lower rated teams (eg. ZQ for the rewards), higher ratings will be forced into an ALands-like map lock. Likewise this means that lower rated teams will have trouble learning to adapt to more skilled opponents having to continually rely on NPCs and zone handicap buffs.
 * Ratings based on victory/kill counts along with the zone buffs and new NPCs would encourage gimmicky play style that capitalizes on whatever would raise rating/give more reward. (Eg kill count leading to constant NPCs+12player mob, etc.)
 * I'm not saying that I don't approve of the idea, rating in AB would encourage a more competitive atmosphere, it's just that if implemented with Vince's ideas it would be not be the best mix. But the ladder idea w/o the handicap would be interesting. - Gale  SKYFIRE 01:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that, if a ladder were implemented, some kind of event would be needed to kick it off. Maybe a weekend with triple rewards (faction + rating)?  &mdash;  Raine Valen  [[Image:User_Raine_R.gif|19px]]  1:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm on the fence as far as a rating system would be implemented. That would take a lot of programming, while esentially what I'm suggesting is less time consuming. Btw, I like how I essentially expanded on your idea without knowing haha. 74.78.113.68 01:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ^ Vincent Evan [Air Henchman] 01:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The thing I don't like about the current implementation is that it's easy to lose matches because of a set of bad allies that you didn't get to pick. In a rating system, that's eliminated because, if you're good, you don't end up with bad teams that you didn't pick.  Maybe, even with a rated system, unrated matches should still be allowed for teams that want to fuck around; for the unrated matches, a system like yours is a lot more "casual".  &mdash;  Raine Valen  [[Image:User_Raine_R.gif|19px]]  1:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

NPC + Environment Issues
First off those NPC bars are actually more powerful than warrants for a skirmish-capture playstyle that AB demands. Even in this current AB setting, getting shrine NPCs involved in a skirmish often results in the defending team pushing the aggressors out. This is most easily observed in a 4v4 with a team camping the Elite Elementalist Shrine or Resurrection/Res Orb Shrine. While it's true that the suggested NPC bars would hassle uncoordinated teams they would also provide tons of additional support for a team actively fighting on or nearby. The necromancers and elementalist bars alone would turn any skirmish near their shrine an instant powerful hexway pressure or air spike. Plus the bar changes still wont deter solo cappers since AI isn't designed to engage outside aggro, meaning that a Meteor Shower or Savannah Heat has already been dropped on their heads. In regard to the map passive bonuses, they are pretty overpowered. The armor and movement buffs in particular are unbalanced. The armor buff gives anywhere between 15-23% damage reduction in addition to stacking with existing armor. This more or less makes the Warriors have a built-in Defy Pain and gives everyone else considerable survivability as whole compared to their opposition. Plus even moving +5% faster then the guy chasing you allows players to kite into infinity (or constantly chasing). That combined with the +damage, and +attack speed buffs gives the benefiting team an extreme advantage that is far more difficult to counter then the current map shrine/npc/base placements. - Gale  SKYFIRE 02:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't change the bars, change the shrine bonuses to apply to the NPCs defending the shrine (eg. Mesmers at Elemental Defense Point gaining the + elemental armor). This would encourage different tactical approaches at each shrine opposed to a gang of bots rupting every 1/2 sec spell with leech signet.As for shrines like Resurrection or Orb, health regeneration (+3) should be bestowed upon NPCs around the shrine, increasing durability of existing NPC followers that otherwise die when forgotten, and encouraging team capping to counter the pressure control of the NPCs at the shrine.
 * As for the Saltspray Dragon, it already makes unprepared players explode. The last thing it needs is a buff when it's RtL->Lightning Touch->Inferno combo thwarts solo cappers with a vengeance.
 * To mix up gameplay, a specific Alliance Battles Flux rotation should be implemented that changes specific map effects on a regular basis. This would change up how teams play but not giving either side a powerful default bonus. For example: Flux(Alliance Battles [Grenz Frontier]) Around Elemental Defense Point, all players suffer -1 Energy Regeneration. Around Riverside Attack Point, all players gain +1 Energy Regeneration. Changes like this would change the tactics and placement of teams to use the Flux changes to their advantage. It would also change how players approach sections of the map.
 * That's quite the argument, good sir. I'll check it out tomorrow. Otherwise I may a have prolapse of logic. :p Vincent Evan [Air Henchman] 02:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)