Talk:Alliance battle/Archive 1

Long Wait Times
Ok, there seem to be a lot of rumors regarding why it takes so long to get into an Alliance Battle sometimes. Some of the rumors I have heard are things like:


 * There really IS no opposing party to join.
 * There is not enough server space to host more battles.
 * There are not enough allied groups waiting to enter battle in your district.
 * There are too many allied groups waiting to enter battle in your district.
 * There is some kind of second timer in addition to the visible one that helps to coordinate battles.
 * Someone in the group has too much enemy faction.
 * Its a bug.
 * There's a limit on the amount of wins a certain side can have per hour, thus putting extra wait time on the winning side.

Can a dev who might be reading this explain what the official reasoning behind the sometimes 10-20 minute waits for an Alliance battle? There are some times of day when it seems to go smoothly, and other times of day when it seems to take a LONG time to get in. I have two accounts, one being Luxon and one Being Kurzick, so I can attest to the fact that, sometimes, there are long waits on both sides. I think I speak for a lot of people when I say we would certainly like to learn more about this phenomenon. :)

(This was originally posted on Gaile's talk page erroneously, I copied and moved it here. Counciler 09:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's what I've learned from the lead designer:
 * Yes, this is most likely the cause of any delays, as there is a large difference in the number of Kurzick and Luxon teams. Being able to get in easily as Kurzick is affected by the sheer numbers, although as your experience indicates, mileage may vary.
 * There are no problems whatsoever with server space -- this is decidely not an issue.
 * Not an issue aside from the imbalanced K/L numbers mentioned above.
 * It's not a matter of too many allied groups aside from the same situation with more Kurzick than Luxon.
 * There is no second timer.
 * This situation is not at all related to possessing opposing faction.
 * We don't know of any bug with matchmaking (which I just confirmed with QA) and it seems unlikely that there is a bug, since the answer is more easily seen in the first response about Luxon/Kurzick numbers.
 * There are no limits on the number of wins, or wins per hour.


 * I hope that's helpful information. --Gaile [[Image:User gaile_2.png| ]] 19:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is most helpful, Gaile. Thank you for taking time to research this matter for us. The best reason I can come up with for the perceived simultaneous long waits on both sides is that while players think there are multiple teams on both sides waiting; there is actually an imbalance. Either due to teams starting and stopping the timers, or having one team too less/many, somehow there is an imbalance. Simply put, its a miscommunication about how many teams out there are actually using the timer. Counciler 00:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting point. If you perceive issues, for instance possible abuse of the system or a potential bug, please do let me know. (Glad to help with the info. :) ) --Gaile [[Image:User gaile_2.png| ]] 05:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Will do, Gaile! Counciler 06:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure I understand. Provided there are sufficient players, is there only a single game generated at the end of every 30-second countdown? (Hence, if there are more people on your side, you wait longer)--67.70.93.202 02:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Reason for map changes
This is something I wonder all the time. So, what causes the map to change? Is there a certain grand amount of points one side must reach first to make the map change in their favour?

June 20, 2007 10:22pm EST


 * I don't know for sure, but I believe it is set to a timer, and when it runs out, the faction with the most overall wins goes deeper into enemy territory, and just repeating at Ancestral Lands or Kaanai Canyon. Risus October 4, 2007 4:36pm CRL
 * Kurzick-Luxon border explains it. 68.78.65.84 17:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

"White towel"
If one team leaves or resigns, does that set the other team's score to 500 like a "knockout" win? -- Gordon Ecker 23:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If your party of 4 resigns, you will get the faction you have achieved already and returned to outpost. Tested :p - IH 16:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I would have hated to be on your side when you tested this ;). --Albus Stormgaard 15:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

GW: Factions required?
Is the purchase of Factions required for a player to participate in Alliance battles? (Can one participate in AB if they only own Prophecies and/or Nightfall?)
 * You need to own Factions, as my guildmate just found out the hard way during the double faction points weekend. Kami No Kei 14:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * BUT, do you need to do something else in the game, or just have it avalaible on your account? --MCPol 12:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)MCPol
 * The only requirements to AB are;
 * 1) A level 20 character (Both PvE and PvP can be used).
 * 2) Access (either through guest or your actual guild) to a Guild with a Guild Hall and allegiance to one of the two factions Kurzicks or Luxons.
 * 3) Access to the Factions campaign. Unlike Fort Aspenwood, you do NOT need to reach any place in Cantha to access the area with a PvE character.
 * If you bought Factions today and wanted to AB you could go to your Guild Hall with a level 20 character, either PvP OR PvE, who has never set foot in Cantha and start a battle (with a group of 4 of course).

Underdog Bonus
Does anyone know if this bonus still applies even if the disadvantaged side wins? 81.168.45.216 08:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't try it myself but when I understand this correctly it does apply even if you loose. poke | talk 09:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * After testing last night i can confirm that the underdog bonus applies even if the disadvantaged side wins as i received a win bonus of 2000 faction at grenz 82.153.120.108 14:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This Is retarded
im so pissed this crap. So i earned the Jadite (spellig error) for my wars 15k armor before this update that makes jadeite count towars title...ok theres maybe 70-80k of luxon faction thats gone. Now you earn more faction in kurzick or luxon areas depending on witch side your on so there gose all that faction i should have earned...and now this is what pisses more off more then anything and almost makes me wanna quit playing this. Omg is so pissed at this its hard to even type it with out cussing my head off.....they double it...the fricten thing they double the value of donated to guild faction...unF**KIN believable so that 555,000 and like 4 months working on it could of been 1,110,000 faction to my title+the bout 70k of jadite...not including w.e i would of earned from the multiple kurzick wins and now instead of getting 1,250 per win 1,500 per win...so ya i got cheated out of over like 650k towards titles...thats f**king bulls**t everyone that earned faction to tittles before that update should of had it doubled becuase that was the only way to get faction towrds title then and it someone had less to there tittle track then there total faction earned b.c they spent it on jadite...that should have been added back...so this is complete and utter BULLS*IT that they cheat the ppl who have played this game longer and give the newer players it much easier then it was when this game --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:82.32.251.74.
 * QQ ~ Kurd [[Image:User Kurd sig.png]] 11:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No can do, I would be at the 4th tier of Kurzick title, but I'm not. A friend had spent 1 million faction to amber, he started with no progression to the Kurzick title. Apologies for the offtopic and agreed with Kurd IH 13:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

PvP
my guild lost 20,000 ab pts in one blow !how come ? AB iznt pvp lolz0rs saz gvg m4n. - Y0_ich_halt 21:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Any form of combat that pits one or more human players against a competition of any sort against one or more opposing human players is pvp in this game. If your going to argue the fact that there are NPC's in AB (such as fans of GvG and HoH tend to do) then by your own arguement, GvG and HoH would also not be PvP as both of these include NPC(s). Although AB may not be as serious to some as GvG or HoH, and the rewards may be lesser, it is still nontheless a form of PvP. If you want to go bash AB, there are plenty of forums for that. And yes, 3y3 4/\/\ |_3373r 7h4/\/ j00. --Ryudo 08:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * ...Umm I don't think you answered his question. The answer is: Every guild loses 10% of their faction every day. I'm not sure the time, but I think it is noon pacific. Risus 4:39pm October 4, 2007 Central


 * I think he understood it fine, it looks like a masked way to bash AB as opposed to a genuine question about faction decay. Dancing Gnome 04:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * After playing AB heavily I found that it plays more like PvE as it’s heavily dominated by the lower skilled Players and the top PvP players mainly play in HA. This is not all ways true though as recently a group of players naming them selves "the coco pops" have been heavily dominating AB matches, there exact build is unknown but is believed to be a form of the iron palm sin spikes.

Bug?
Experience the oddest thing yesterday when going into AB.. Instead of the usual 12 vs 12, our Luxon side was only with 8 people (checked the logging, and nobody of our side had left, so it had to be an issue with the team distribution somewhere). I was wondering if this problem has already occurred at other players? Tribio 11:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Those log messages say who joined in and who left the game. However, it does not say who hasn't joined YET. ;) Overrandom 06:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree on that, but it's quite strange that an entire 4-man team experiences utter lag so they don't join the game in the minute countdown or the 2 minutes of battle.. *insert confused smiley here* Tribio 08:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I doubt it would have been a bug because that would be extremely strange. It was most likely a group of friends on team speak or something and all decided to quit at the same time during the load screen and go do something else. Cause there are both "joined the game" and "disconnected/left the game" messages. - B e X  [[Image:User BeXoR sig.gif|iawtc]] 09:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've seen things like this before, not in an Alliance battle, but in Random Arenas. I joined a battle and both sides of the team had only three players.  While obviously quite peculiar I figured it had something to do with the number of people joining RA--like having 6 left over people try and join and the server deciding to pair those six into two groups of three.  I figure the server may have done the same thing in this instance with your AB match--there were two stray groups of four on each side so it decided to pair those groups up instead of waiting to find one more group for each side. User:Harem


 * Yeah it happens in AB, rarely that happens though, my 4 man team got reduced to 3 man team, other time a team got two players only, but yes, it can happen. The good thing is that is very rarely that it may occur.--ShadowFog 04:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Death Pact Signet
The article says that you shouldn't bring resurrection skills into AB, but I think differently - the only valid resurrection skill you should bring into AB is Death Pact Signet (although it should only be used within tight-knit cap groups that DO have a Monk). Death Pact has a two-second cast-time and can be re-used over and over, allowing a downed teammate to be brought back into the battle right away without having to run across half the map. You just need to make sure the pact-ee stays healed for 2 minutes and that the pact-er has high Health upon casting. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:68.196.141.53 (talk).
 * The value of a resurrection skill should be compared to some other skill that enhances your survivability in the first place. When playing AB I die maybe once in five matches, and whenever that happens (a) the match is already going down the drain if the enemy has enough free players to corner my team and consequently (b) getting resurrected on the spot is the least favorable option.--Tmakinen 08:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Lag or system issues?
I'm having some ugly gameplay in AB. Things run smoothly in RA and HA(lol...if you can wait 3 hours,anyhow) then when I go AB'ing, things go to like 0-4 fps. My system requirements surpasses the one specified by the box, double the recommended...what gives? --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:65.23.207.73 (talk).
 * It's Anet fault. I have a picture of 4 players in AB and with 20 seconds left on the clock, the other 8 players didn't load and they still didn't after the we started. Then we check and the other team(foe) too had 4 players.--ShadowFog 18:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

AB Bug in Grenz/Etnaran
Is it considered bug abuse if we enter their base and avoid their defender and kill them while they spawn? --Risus 02:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Skills, in my opinion.  Calor  [[Image:User_Calor_Sig.png|19px|Talk]] 02:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Definitely skills. Traps on respawn point gogogogogogogogogogo --71.229.204.25 02:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, I could be wrong, but isn't figuring this sort of thing out strategy rather than cheating? :) -- Gaile [[Image:User gaile_2.png| ]] 04:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * They are talking about a bug in some AB maps that allows one team to bypass base defenses of their foes and kill the players as they spawn before they can do anything. The base defenders should instantly kill any foe that gets within a certain range. Foes are not normally allowed to enter the opposition base, as its a safe zone. So this is a bug, and its been mentioned on this page before, no doubt archived someplace. --Just One More Thing 06:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There are some skills that let you teleport in without getting in range of the defender, its not necessarily a bug. &mdash; Teh Uber Pwnzer 06:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Like what and how do you get in the base anyways? Shadow form? -- Ninja Dragon  [[Image:User Ninja Dragon sig.png|20px]] 06:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Base Defense is a projectile skill, projectiles can be obstructed. I think that they should add more Base Defenders, move the existing ones or turn Base Defense into a non-projectile skill, but I don't think that anyone should be punished for taking advantage of the terrain and game physics. -- Gordon Ecker 07:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Scorpion Wire and Necrotic Traversal to name two. They only work in rare circumstances, though. &mdash; Teh Uber Pwnzer 07:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Endure Pain, Defy Pain, Vital Blessing, Vital Weapon, Symbiosis, Balanced Stance, and shadow steps. Or have a Rit on their team and use Spirit Walk. --71.229.204.25 07:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OK thx, Gaile, good point. Strategy, not cheating by owning the kurzies when they least expect it =P. --Risus 23:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The base defenders are there because obviously Anet DOESN'T want camping, and the addition of more defenders further supports this. If people can still camp at home bases, then Something else needs to be done then just adding more base defenders.Ajc2123

I can sure ask for greater details, but yes, I agree, the changes in base defenders would remove or reduce the cheesy factor will still allowing some degree of possibility for the strategy. I asked whether this was still a bug just two days ago, and they said that the corrective measure was indeed made through the changes in defenders. What do you guys think about the effectiveness of that change? -- Gaile 22:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I havent seen anyone camping anymore, and I cant imagine anywhere where the base defenders can be blocked, so in my experience I'd say its working. Ajc2123

Good One
Ok, maybe I deserved to spawn in the Jade Quarry after that tremendous defeat in an Alliance Battle. Fair enough. But who did ever get the idea: no more surprise, k ? Yseron - 90.15.62.235 00:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Easy Exploit to Win with Fire Magic Spells
Although the Kurzick/Luxon defenders are station right inside of the reviving area, but you can still cast powerful aoe fire magic spells in the starting area. When the opposing team is being resurrected in the starting area; there is a three second delay where they can not do anything with their character so exploit that delay and cast powerful fire magic skills from the elementalist line such as:  meteor shower, savannah heat or whatever else you can think of and will cause the opposing team to suffer massive amounts of damage before they can control their character. Eventually, the opposing team will be so frustrated and will leave the match which will leave your team with less players to compete with and causing your side to win easily.William Wallace 04:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * ya know, the thing about this kind of stuff is that its ok if only 1 group knows it, its not like they are going to AB for 9 hours straight just to get the luxons back on track with the border (im a jade pirate, if thats what you're thingking :D). But, now more and more people are going to exploit it because its been explained how to do on the wiki. Not your fault, but i can see a nerf to this coming soon--[[Image:User_Raph_Sig.png|19px]]Ra ph  Tal ky  13:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Bug: NPCs revive
In Grenth Frontier it has happend to me many times with the kurzick NPC warriors in the shrine, that a warrior respawns. I thought it might be normal that NPCs respawn after a while, but, I have come to realize that it could be a bug when I killed the warrior and it respawned after a few seconds, I killed the respawned warrior again and it respawned after a few seconds... I was alone, there were no oponent players around, one warrior respawned only, so there was not a change of ownership of the shrine involved on the happening. Also, I realize now that NPCs respawning happens in this shrine and it may happen also in the elementalists shrine... --Marianojc 15:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Bring Tolkano to AB areas
At the introduction of AB's you would have to leave your team to donate faction, but now there's Z-keys. But to get them, you'll need to leave your team to get them. Add him to all AB areas so it would be easier to get the keys without leaving. Robert Batchelor 14:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

AB battles during the factions preview weekend
I'd personally like to see AB be more like how it was during the factions preview weekend, where all 12 players were listed in the player list, and instead of working in teams of 4, you can meet up with other people and make your own teams while playing in the game (like fort aspenwood)205.250.78.245 07:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So one person would just kind of lead a 12 person party? &mdash;  ク  Eloc  貢  01:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Big problem with this is that certain party wide skills (e.g. Heal Party) become hugely overpowered. As much as I liked the initial 12 people AB, it would be scewed towards that type of skills. --Xeeron 08:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If only ArenaNet had come up with ways that allow greater coordination between the three teams. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png| ]] 01:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Right now all they should be doing is finding a way to stop leechers from gaining faction. But yes, 12 person party would break skills like Heal Party, LoD and make Paragons the gods of AB. (Still think they need to limit melee classes there, to many failure warriors, sins and dervishes running around)--Masato 16:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Tie
I've tied before, but do both sides get a win bonus? 68.78.65.84 17:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Usually in AB right after a tie, a person dies or a stand is captured, which in my experience has led to that team getting faction —Utopian ♫ 19px]] 17:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If it is a tie (both teams hit 500 points at the same time) then Kurzick wins. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:121.218.202.64 (talk).
 * lmao. &mdash;  ク  Eloc  貢  21:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

AB Title Idea
Another Change that could be added to the Factions campaign is Alliance Alliance Battles.This is done by Guilds of an Alliance meeting at the Alliance Leaders Hall and forming parties to battle an opposing Alliance; face-to-face on the current Frontier. Pitting each Faction against each other in brutal combat to truly gain glory for the respective faction. Forming 3 groups of 4, making 12 members of the alliance to join in battle, directly against another Alliance of the opposing faction.

After forming a party of four(any greater or lesser number would be denied by the system with no henchmen or heroes obviously), at the Alliance Leaders Hall; the leader of the party of four can click on the "Guild Battle" button and there will be a new option: Engage in Alliance Battle.

At this point, much like a regular Alliance Battle, the timer engages with the 30 second timer. Waiting for 2 other parties of the players alliance to join the battle and 3 parties from the opposing faction alliance. Once the six teams of four are ready, battle engages. At the beginning of battle, it should be like in HB, HA and GvG where the dialog box showing the alliances name, tag and faction.

E.g
 * {| cellpadding="5"

! Luxon Representative !! Kurzick Representative ! Luxon Alliance Guild [Lux] || Kurzick Alliance Guild [Kurz]
 * - align="center" valign="top"
 * - align="center" valign="top"
 * 13,213,234 Luxon Faction || 10,535,568 Kurzick Faction
 * }

From here it is much like a regular alliance battle with the same strategic points, same target goal and same map. The only difference is that you are with your alliance and fighting united against the opposing force.

The competition would be more fierce and perhaps it would be unfair for a 10 mil alliance to be pitting it out against a 100k alliance, but doesn't Guild Wars state that "skill is more important than the amount of time played" or along those lines. So it would not matter if a smaller guild of 100k faction is pitted against a 10m alliance! Here skill, teamwork, coordination and stradegy is taken into account. The amount of faction earned could be different or the same as a regular Alliance Battle. The reward for winning could be an extra 250 faction. It is up to ANet and community to determine what is truly a suitable reward for this intense alliance battle.

Alliance Battle Title Currently there is one title for both FFF and AB faction gain. So I thought this would be an awesome idea for those who truly AB and be rewarded for the battles won for their faction rather than the amount of repeated questing done. So I propose A New Title : Veteran of the Luxons/Kurzicks (12).

The title is tracked in points of Renown(or distinction or any other word). Greater points of Renown can only be earned by winning when attacking into respective deep enemy territory. For Luxons it would be Ancestral lands and Kurzicks Kaanai Canyon. For winning on deep territory, as well as the 2500 faction, each player on the winning attacking team would also receive Renown points. Renown is earned for each successful victory. Adding to the Veteran of the Luxon/Kurzick Title. The proposed title ranks follow:

Faction Renown Ranks:


 * {| cellpadding="5"

! Tier !! Rank names !! Renown ! 1 || Kurzick/Luxon Scout (1) || 100
 * - align="center" valign="top"
 * - align="center" valign="top"
 * 2 || Kurzick/Luxon Footman (2) || 250
 * - align="center" valign="top"
 * 3 || Kurzick/Luxon Skirmisher (3) || 400
 * - align="center" valign="top"
 * 4 || Kurzick/Luxon Legionnaire (4) || 550
 * - align="center" valign="top"
 * 5 || Kurzick/Luxon Man-at-arms (5) || 875
 * - align="center" valign="top"
 * 6 || Kurzick/Luxon Gladiator (6) || 1,200
 * - align="center" valign="top"
 * 7 || Kurzick/Luxon Warden (7) || 1,850
 * - align="center" valign="top"
 * 8 || Kurzick/Luxon Champion (8) || 2,500
 * - align="center" valign="top"
 * 9 || Kurzick/Luxon Combatant (9) || 5,000
 * - align="center" valign="top"
 * 10 || Kurzick/Luxon Colonel (10) || 9,000
 * - align="center" valign="top"
 * 11 || Kurzick/Luxon Genera (11) || 20,500
 * - align="center" valign="top"
 * 12 || Kurzick/Luxon Veteran (12) || 50,000
 * }

The Numbers may be a bit high/low so ANet should consider the real numbers in order for the AB farmers to really strive for that title but let casual players be able to gain at least tier 1. The rank names should also be changed as the order is possible incorrect. This new title will encourage players to cap control points more as control points gain more points than mere killing, more teamwork will be required. However, to make this title truly special, Renown should be only gained in an Alliance Alliance Battle against an opposing alliance as stated in my previous post. Winning on deep territory is not easy but neither is it impossible. Gainers of this title will truly show off their teamwork, skill and dedication on the battlefield. Discuess

After some thought and contemplation, maybe instead of gaining 'renown' by just winning in deep territory, renown can be earned in all maps as follows:

+2 Renown for Neutral and home territory victory

+3 Renown for shallow hostile territory victory and

+4 Renown for deep hostile territory victory.

The Ratios are similar to the current faction gain. 100% on neutral/home territory. 150% on shallow hostile and 200% on Deep hostile territory.

According to my understanding of Guild Wars 2, the emperor of Cantha unites all the people under one banner so therefore Luxon/Kurzick factions no longer exist, so this idea for AAB in guild wars 2 in futile. Also, ANet claims that they will continue to support Guild Wars after Guild Wars 2 is released. This idea, will compel players to continue to play the original Guild Wars long after the sequel is released!

DeathBySnuuSnuu 08:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)DeathBySnuuSnuu

Lag?
Anyone seeing huge amounts of lag tonight? Retro77 04:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * None for me. Theres the usual frame skip, but low graphics is the fault of that one. --[[Image:User Wandering Traveler Oie User Wandering Traveler Sig2.png|19px]]  Wandering   Traveler  23:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Still too much lag and massive disconnect/reconnect going on. In one game today, the whole side I was playing for received massive lag and disconnect/reconnect problems, really huge problems. The scale was so huge that every player in the side I was playing for reported the same problem, the other side received none. Thus the beatdown we received was so humiliating the joke in the game about us was that we were literally doing nothing. What is going on with Guild Wars?--Wealedout 23:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Ive had the same thing happening in my team. My teammates loses connection then they come back online, including myself. Something is on the fritz alright.--ShadowFog 00:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

AB Quest Idea
Greetings, I have formulated another brainwave to improve Alliance battles.

My idea is Alliance Battle Quests/Achievements: Once an alliance battle begins, players have quests that they can choose to achieve, in order to earn extra faction or experience.

I will explain tokens later down.

Quests involve:''' '''Killing 0/5 players of the enemy Faction during one Alliance Battle. Reward : 1 Luxon/Kurzick Token

Kill 0/5 Enemy NPCs during one Alliance Battle. Reward : 1 Luxon/Kurzick Token

Capturing 0/5 enemy Shrines during one Alliance Battle. Reward : 1 Luxon/Kurzick Token

Receive 3000 points of damage during one life Reward : 1 Luxon/Kurzick Token

For Monks Heal 5000 points of damage during one Alliance Battle. Reward : 1 Luxon/Kurzick Token

Heal 3000 points of damage on friendly NPCS during an alliance Battle Reward : 1 Luxon/Kurzick Token

On Ancestral Lands or Kaanai Canyon: Destroy 0/3 Enemy gates Reward : 1 Luxon/Kurzick Token

Repair 0/3 Friendly Gates Reward : 1 Luxon/Kurzick Token

On underdog maps the defending team's goals should be greater. [QUOTE]Killing 0/5 players of the enemy Faction during one Alliance Battle. Reward : 1 Luxon/Kurzick Token[/QUOTE] Instead of 5 players required to be slain on Grenz Frontier while playing Luxon. The Kurzicks must slay 10 Luxons in order to receive their Token. And 15 Luxons while on Ancestral lands. Vice versa for Luxons on underdog maps

Of course, the rewards may be too great, receiving 3 Tokens for 3 questions. Maybe the quests can be synthesized to form a few larger quests. Such as :

''Killing 0/5 players of the enemy Faction during one Alliance Battle. Kill 0/5 Enemy NPCs during one Alliance Battle. Capturing 0/5 enemy Shrines during one Alliance Battle.''

is one quest and completion of these three objectives, earns the player 3 Luxon/Kurzick Tokens.

Now onto the tokens The token's earned by a player can be redeemed at any Luxon/Kurzick Scavenger. The items the player can receive can be good. x Tokens for x Luxon/Kurzick Faction. x Tokens for x gold pieces. x Tokens for x Jade shards/amberite.

I think this idea would improve the amount of attendance in Alliance Battles and reward players on their individual and group achievements. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:211.28.68.113 (talk).
 * Good idea, but the individual quests will need work to make them unexploitable and balanced. For example, a bot monk can get the 5k and 3k healing quests done in ~30 seconds by spamming a single target heal on any NPC, and then leave. Tanking quest also has exploit potential. Any quests that can be done without enemies around, will most likely increase amount of bots. Another issues lies within the meta, quests like these might discourage use of regen and encourage use of degen/lifesteal. Of course, all of that depends on how good the token rewards will be. -193.211.5.90 10:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you kill your self?
At the beginning of AB where the countdown is before beginning to battle, can you kill youself? If so this can be a good idea for minion masters. So, can you?--ShadowFog 17:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I would assume that you can, but it would probably give a point to the opposing team. &mdash;  ク  Eloc  貢  20:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Underdog Bonus Issues
this rly annoys me, and I belive its so for many other ppl playing AB!

Lets start with the basic idea of the Underdog Bonus, it gives more and more advantage maps to the losing faction. It balances the factions so none can win or lose "too much" of the land. What does this mean: paradoxally the winning side is penalized for good playing and the losing side is rewarded for bad playing! Its a Communist philosophy where the weak are supported while the strong are negated by an artificial external force, (the communist state and in the game the maps unbalanced settings) resulting in a totally uncompetitive enviroment and unfair play.
 * a classical communist idea

The faction bonuses/penalty determine 70-90% of the battle outcome! it's an offense to anyone that respects PVP! what kind of "communist" pre-arranged battle is it when i got 90% to win/lose right from the start!? By this the game designers indicate that they dont give a sh*t about the gaming skills of the players; the gaming skills, the abillity and energy one puts in the play just dont matter. so simply there is no human aspect of the game, they might as well create npcs in 2 different factions and make them fight and rotate the AB maps, nothing will change from how it is now.
 * pre-arranged battles won/lost right from the start...


 * whats is the point in playing a game won/lost right from the start?

-For the winning side its an easy catch. they expect a real challenge and get heavily penalized opponents. the game threats them as retards assigning them special help to be equal with the opponents.

-For the loosing side it comes natural to feel that they are unrightfully manipulated to loose in an unfair pre-arranged match.

its a totally unballanced game. if i'd wanted to play a game where i will win 100% i would have taken an offline game possibly with a GOD mod option. And I dont think there would be anyone sane willing to play a game lost right from the start. Anyway the online gaming is about challenging real opponents not for this kind of "pre-arranged" baby challenges.


 * from the gamers point of view

lets take a casual gamer example, a kurzick one. He goes online, other kurzick players(in the last few days) have overcome the luxons so the AB is situated in Deep Luxon area. He starts the match versus the Luxons in Deep Luxon area so he has 80% if not + penality so most probably he will loose the match. The game (ab)uses this player, it is pre-arranged that he should lose the match, be killed over and over again, just to keep the "ballance". Its totally unfair and unballanced so-called "pvp". Zomby 23:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It allows for diversive field play as its added to the faction momentum element of AB. Thus allowing one to gain access to all 5 AB maps. Many of us oldies remeber when you only ever saw the middle 3 maps and it got boring fast, at least this requires changes in basic tactics to play and win on the different maps. However what i do think is that faction reward for AB needs buffed greatly in the extreme maps,so that if you win you get a proper reward like 5k faction. -- Salome [[Image:User_salome_sig.png|19px]] 00:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The Ancestral Lands and Kaanai Canyons maps represent strategically valuable, fortified points deep in Kurzick and Luxon territory respectively, it's realistic for them to be hard to attack, and for the battle lines to stay around the less defensible border territory. Games are supposed to be fun, having to wait 10 minutes for a match to start because the other side only has half as many players isn't fun, it's boring. The underdog bonus could also be justified on the grounds of realism: getting volunteers to defend or liberate home territory would probably be easier than getting volunteers to conquer heavily defended enemy territory, so the Kurzicks and Luxons could provide additional incentives for participating in the latter type of battles which are abstracted as the underdog bonus. As for being more likely to get stuck with a bad team on deep enemy maps, IMO a better solution to that problem would be to bring back classic Alliance Battles with 2 teams of 12 instead of 6 teams of 4. -- Gordon Ecker 00:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yup which is why i suggested a bigger bonus for the opposing team playing in those areas,say around 5k a win. However i dont agree with the 2 teams of 12 thing as it was a complete bitch to monk with. -- Salome [[Image:User_salome_sig.png|19px]] 00:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What's wrong with communism anyway? It works on paper, the auto industry, Wal-Mart and on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Why not here, after all the internet is Communism.24.56.247.13 08:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Its not about the variety of the maps. If this was the problem they could have made a simple map rotation of totally balanced (mirror) maps. Instead there is an illusion of a competitive play in a pre-determined fight outcome, typical for offline '90 (god mod) gaming.Zomby 00:39,
 * response to the Variety of Maps issue by Salome

the strategically valuable, fortified points that the -deep territory maps- present have a realistic -real life- setting, still this does not justify the game bonus/penalities since they determine the outcome of the match and the real players count little or nothing. Besides in real life even the hardest fortifications can be taken while the game is designed in a way that no faction can ever win/lose the total of the territory. this means that the actual gameplay has no significance, even NPC's can do AB and will follow the same pre-arranged gaining/losing territory cicle patterns we are following now.Zomby 01:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * about the real life fortifications refference


 * Dude, it's a game. They decided that the factions can fight back and forth.  They decided that attacking deep in the other enemy's territory was harder.  The decided that to compensate for the harder difficulty, you would get more faction. And it's never cut-and-dried who will win.  Your 90% lose chance is way off. it's probably more like 65/35 at the extreme. And how the heck is that communist?  --JonTheMon 01:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You're exaggerating the percentages. And if you think no one wants to play AB like that... are you sure you've been playing AB? And lastly, since you asked for what's the point of playing, I'd like to ask what's your point of complaining? What exactly do you want to see changed? -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png| ]] 09:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

- the % are quite high even 100/0% (depends if we count a single match or the overall general situation), this can be prooven by the fact that no faction has e v e r won/lost the total of the territory. If the bonus/penalty percentages were more moderate it would have happened by now, since it never did they are pretty extreme.

-What could be changed? cut the pre-arranged map bonus/penalty so that there is actual gameplay. Use balanced (mirror) maps. Reset territory conquests on regular intrevals (once every 2 weeks per ex.) Anyway, they will probably implement something like this in GW2, but for GW1 they are never going to make changes like this. Zomby 10:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, see the Guild Wars 2 Wiki's World PvP article for details. Apparently the plan is that there will be one huge map with no player cap, with servers being rematched every week or two based on battle performance in order to keep the sides evenly matched. -- Gordon Ecker 11:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Not-Communist AB Comment
The previous issue did nothing but make me want to fall asleep when I tried to read through it. Communist philosophy in a MMORPG? You're reading pretty deeply into it, honestly. Since wiki formatting scares me ( : I just decided I'd make a new section, so:

-I previously thought that the territory changes like clockwork every three hours, regardless of circumstance. I was partially wrong. I've noticed that the map will sometimes stay the same at designated change times. This is a bad idea. I don't want to sit in Kaanai canyon for nine damn hours straight, fighting alongside one incompetent group after another. On some days, the 90% loss figure is actually really accurate. On good days, it's more like the 35/65 ratio. I hate that random factor. Point of this suggestion- MAKE THE MAPS ROTATE LIKE THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO. 3 hours per map, that's it. Waiting 15 minutes in my own territory just to get a game going is retarded, especially when the map seems stuck there for six hours.

-Personally, I'd love to see more balanced maps. I love Saltspray. Even chance to win, for the most part (It occasionally depends largely on whether the left and right-moving teams fail their fights or not), and the Dragon is just a neat mechanic. Problem? Saltspray is the rarest map. I don't follow this logic. The most fairest and balanced (by comparison) map shows up the least? Bad idea.

--->Make a seperate map that DOESN'T change that runs Saltspray (and, hell, even new, balanced maps) constantly. NO KEYS/GRENZ/LANDS/KAANAI<---

-Tying into the above- new maps would be nice, too. Pretty please.

-When I say 'make a seperate map', I just mean a new set of outposts or similar, akin to how the current maps rotate out every 3 hours. Just no bias/advantageous maps, for clarification.

-If just these ideas were implemented (fixing the current rotation, and adding a new, balanced one), a lot of complaints would probably be addressed. With the people that enjoy balanced maps leaving their own advantaged maps, the people that play mainly on Grenz and AL will experience smaller wait times. Those who want balanced maps will get them. Others who are tired of suiciding themselves on Kaanai (EVERYONE MOB THE BASE QUICK!!11!!) will be able to go get worthwhile faction. (Re: Underdog bonus- doesn't work as well as you think when you manage a whopping, what, 150 points?)

I was pondering writing all that for awhile now, then saw this little discussion. Sorry if it's incoherent. Diva 22:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree with pretty much all of the above (except new maps, who can be against that?). The "biased" maps are fun to play, especially as the attacker. Winning there against the odds make you feel much better than simply winning in Saltspray. And making the map change every 3 hours is also a bad idea: Like that, the actual wins/losses by your side would no longer influence the map. You could win 100% of matches and still be pushed back, where is the logic in that? --Xeeron 17:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Healing Bug?
While playing monk in AB, I noticed that whenever I cast a spell on someone who wasn't in my official party, but still an ally, the blue numbers show up as +0's. They're still healed (red bar goes up), it's just a graphical error. This happen to anyone else? If so there should be a bug tag. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Supertrek32 (talk).
 * This happened to me a few times, but its really rare for me. During my year of heavy ABing, I had it happen maybe 2-3 times.--Ryudo 04:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

WANT A NEW AB MAP ....
... YA--Hellfirez 22:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think you'll get one, even if you capitalise all your letters in some hope of making an impact... -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png| ]] 06:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

fatcion amount?
They seriously need to reconsider thee faction given on AB i mean its much faster to go to fort aspenwood and jade quarry. in both you get faster games and a stable faction amount whereas in AB it takes ridiculasy long for a match and even if u win end up gettin 2k kurz. they need to update the faction gain now. Even the underdog bonus doesn't help.