User talk:Isaiah Cartwright/HA feedback/Archive

2nd Map too small
The 2nd map is too small there isn't enough room to move around. ~Izzy @-&#39; 18:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's technically smaller than the first map, but plays bigger because it's more open. -Ensign 19:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeh this map is good because it doesnt have the same enclosed areas that plagued Burial Grounds. In Burial Grounds degenerate and outright lame teams with 1000 spirits and AoE would recognise a far better opponent and retreat deep into the enclosed bases and make it a killing zone for anyone trying to enter. Where this map is bad is that any team making its way through the river finds itself giving the opponent a height and positional advantage. In Underworld, its the same but the danger is not as hard to deal with by a good team. On Fetid Ground the height and positional advantage for the defending team is quite significant. Visibility up from the river for monks and caster is terrible, where as visibility down to the river is much better. Thankfully, not many teams pay much heed to this and there is usually 1 team who is prepared to make the rush through the river. I just fear situations where neither team is prepared to venture down and a stalemate ensues which might lead to a very very long match of waiting. There have been concerns over the lack of lighting in the map. I have mixed feelings about it. I like it on one hand because its just another thing that we have to learn to play with, limited visibility, and anything to give older players something new to learn is a good thing in general i think. I dont like it on the other hand because people who rely heavily on the visibility of the fight will find it hardest to adapt, like good prot monks. I dont think increasing the lighting is a pressing issue but its something to keep tabs on to see whether players continue to complain about it or not. Personally im prepared to learn to adapt to it.--Lorekeeper 19:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that the biggest problem with the map is visibility, both from the height differences, the low lighting, and models being partially hidden in the water of the river. I turned my contrast up every time I got to that map and still couldn't get much use out of watching the field.  Having to go into a valley to approach the other team sucks, but is trivial compared to the chokes you need to run through on many maps. -Ensign 20:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Capture Points

 * Maps are too long
 * Maps have no good skunk mechanics ~Izzy @-&#39; 18:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The first capture point map is too small to support 5 capture points. The map is cramped and you barely have to split to capture multiple points. -Ensign 19:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I liked it but i think you should lower the time for this map or put something like "the first team that reachs 25points". and like Ensign said, map is too small for 5 cap points. but at least is a nice idea. about the 2nd cap map, took like 5minutes to discover how to open the gate ;], maybe try to highligh the gate lock Tricolor 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * theres plenty of room for splitting effectively, there are plenty of times when almost every shrine is occupied by at least 1 player what you cannot do because of the size of the map is have prolonged skirmish fights against other split teams or individuals without some kind of help being nearby. I had a really fun fight on my warrior supported by my prot monk versus 2 rangers and a water ele, managed to kill 2 of them without their monks coming to their aid but wasnt able to catch the water ele before some monks finally came to help him. If the map was bigger, skirmishes on the shrines would become more deadly and people would need to be less reckless with their splitting but its a far cry to say that its cramped and you dont have to split to capture multiple points. I really like the organised chaos, it suits the type of play that rewards each and every individual player for having some initiative, awareness, and skill. Most plans fall to pieces since you can never predict what the opposing party will do, so you are forced to improvise and adapt to every situation as they come. Adding a bit more space between the shrines wouldnt be a bad thing tho, but it wont make the map less cramped, it will just make proper split play ie skirmishes between splitters deeper and more satisfying.--Lorekeeper 18:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I like the changes - it means that pure spike teams will never get to HoH (i despise teams that achieve kills by only 3-2-1 spike), so I think that the rt spike has been nerfed by the map changes. they are good ones as they force a balanced build Tarlok 21:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok firstly the rit spike laughs at this as it can easily split into 3 or even 4 small teams to cap shrines because of all the healing they have on each bar. I personally hate these maps, they seem way too HB ish and a lot of the time you find players simply dancing on a shrine or sitting. It's terrible, it doesn't reward kills like HB does so you can't simply overpower you're opponent. and it encourages people to simply run around like chickens from shrine to shrine and at the end of the day the team which has split into most little groups almost always wins. Great balanced but aggressive teams can lose to a team that is in no way as good but simply had more defense so therefore could split more. I've even seen and been in teams where healers are put in slots 3, 6 and 8 just to make it easier on the shrine maps. IMO sitting around dancing on shrines is not what HA is..or should be, about. -- ChronicinabilitY [[Image:User Chronicinability Spiteful_Spirit.jpg|18px]] 20:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The contrast between Antechamber (which is awesome) and Forgotten Shrines (which is terrible) could not be more clear. The shrines are more spread out on Antechamber, teams have clear advantages for certain shrines, and movement is more limited, putting a lot more value on scoring kills and holding ground on that map. From the games I've played there, it felt like a map with a lot of strategic depth that would take a while to really get a hang of. The only change I would suggest would be to make the central capture point a res shrine as well for the team holding it, further rewarding position, ground control, and combat. Forgotten Shrines has none of this. There's virtually no incentive for combat, the map is small and open and you can run from shrine to shrine quickly. It is impossible to control ground, to contain a team, and it's really a degenerate 'run around capping as fast as you can' race that's not very fun. The map needs a complete overhaul in my estimation. -Ensign 20:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Lorekeeper. Forgotten Shrines is fine as it is. You need to split well and players' awareness is awarded. Combat can give you an advantage, especialy when you take ghost down for minute. Forgotten Shrines differ from Antechamber and that's good. Like Andrew Patrick stated - Heroes' Ascent is about different goals - runing skills and snares was always a part of HA (relic, 1v1 broken tower). But I'd agree that resurrection point should be somwhere else, maybe in place when you start map. This map and Antechamber is what HA needed (but ofc not only that). --Kain 00:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

This is just me, but I hate having alliance battles in HA. HA was originally designed for 8v8 straight out fighting. Having a footrace with your enemies doesn't make sense to me and never will. Personally I think capture points is the second dumbest objective you can put in HA (next to relics in Halls). Shard 21:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Alliance Battles doesn't really have anything to do with Capture Points, other than part of the game type using them. If you think about it, a lot of the gametypes in our game are Capture Points with a twist. Altar is a capture point that needs to be taken by a specific NPC (the Ghostly), the Priest is a capture point that rezzes you as long as you hold it, you just can't retake it once it's captured. Even the Guild Lord and GvG is just a series of capture points just presented in a different way. "Having a footrace with your enemies doesn't make sense to me and never will" is an interesting statement. Isn't that exactly what a Relic Run is? And why is it dumb to have Capture Points and a Relic run in the Hall? Is it because you just don't like the objectives themselves? Or is it because the map isn't made for it? What if we had a new map that was built for these objectives? Just food for thought - [[Image:User Linsey Murdock sig.jpg]]Linsey talk 19:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If you think capping an altar or gvg is anything like capture points, you don't HA enough. All the relic runs in HA are dumb except the one at Sacred Temples (oops its not there anymore), which was only good because it required strategy instead of just running a relic.  There are too many maps in HA that enforce using as much overpowering force as possible instead of strategy, and that's why nobody plays HA anymore.  Right now most HA maps are determined by "who has better skills." Shard

Balance Issues
Please don't post any feedback about Heroway, and Ritspike as I'm just looking for feedback on the new map changes, and I'll be address both of these issues soon. ~Izzy @-&#39; 18:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pretty much removing Para's from HA/GvG with the recent update to AR/GFTE and the previous nerf to Pve skills! Just come out and say the paras are to be killed altogether. Solution? Reduce critical chance. Reduce attack speed instead.

General discussion
You're (hopefully) getting this info from Mr. Patrick, but just in case heres a bunch of threads at Guru --> http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=277 &mdash; Skuld 18:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Sacred Temples
Thread here: http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10183422

I'm a fan of all the new maps but I strongly believe that Sacred Temple was always on of the best maps, if not the best, and it's quite a shame to see it disappear. Obviously with the new maps it does seem difficult to find a spot for it but in my opinion it could replace Golden Gates or Courtyard which are much inferior map that share the similar HoH-esque appearance with it Yesitsrob 05:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep i definately would support putting Sacred Temples back into rotation and taking Golden Gates out. We already have 2 annihilation style maps. I think 2 annihilation, 2 relic, 2 cap points, 1 altar map is an ideal mix that makes alot of sense. Ideally there would be a 2nd altar map to even things out but 3 annihilation maps is unnecessary.--Lorekeeper 18:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I wholly disagree Lorekeeper ... I think you need to keep Golden Gates (and Burial Mounds to be frank). I think Annihilation maps are the foundation of HA ... I mean, GW IS about scoring kills and beating another team. Relic Runs and Cap Point maps are great for diversity of skills/builds and rewarding the more skilled team ... but I think annihilation maps should be the foundation.
 * Not anymore tbh, the annihilation maps only promote scrub builds like four thumpers and splinter weapon etc. Varied map types will promote skilled builds and skilled play - something that hardly exists in HA now. - Auron 05:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Auron. Annihilation promotes shitty 8v8 tacticless gameplay. I think the less of it the better. Yesitsrob 13:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasnt commenting against annihilation as such, i was just commenting against there being too many of ANY 1 type of map in the HA rotation because i think that the best way to encourage a diverse meta is to prevent this. And by adding burial mounds back into the rotation there are 4 annihilation style maps, 3 of which with priests. Golden Gates is my least favourite of the 3, and perhaps burial mounds for the tightly enclosed priest shrine. I do like 1vs1 slugfests, after all the main focus of your build is to succeed in a 1vs1 encounter. I just think we have finally got a good taste of a diverse HA map rotation, and removing 1 of the 4 annhilations and replacing it with Sacred Temples would improve this diversity even further.--Lorekeeper 23:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * IMO Sacred temples was the most well designed map. It demanded a lot of strategy, which is good for a strategy game.  Taking it out was a mistake. Shard 21:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I'll miss it some too, but that doesn't mean it wont come back, it needs to pathing clean up, maybe we'll fit it back in there ; ) ~Izzy @-&#39; 00:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sacred Temples... brings back memories of solo body blocking the switch patch. Good times. [[Image:User Aiiane-a.gif|Go to Aiiane's Talk page]] (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 04:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Forgotten Shrines
Terrible map overall. I'm inherently biased against alliance battles in real PvP, but aside from that, RaO thumpers rule it without question. Rangers are resilient, as we all know, and with an unending speed buff (and overly spammable knockdowns and daze/DW pressure) on pretty much every member of their team, the heroway-gone-peopleway owns this map (and as you also know, the heroway-gone-peopleway is the most common build period atm). Either further balance the build (remove speed buff or attack speed from RaO) or restructure the map - I'd be inclined to say remove alliance battles from real PvP entirely, but as that's not going to happen, hit RaO something hard so the super common button-mashing teams don't have an inherent edge on all the real teams. - Auron 04:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think izzy is trying to keep build balance issues out of this page. So aside from the fact that spiritway dominates every map objective imaginable, yeah I hate cap points.  Forgotten shrines is too small to be a challenging cap points match.  I mean, monks at one point can almost heal allies at the other.  I hate antechamber more, because the layout is idiotic.  At least antechamber encourages some level of combat. Shard 21:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've done some tweaks to it but didn't have time to push it live yet, I'll get some Pics up of the mini maps and we can discuss my changes, but basically I removed the middle paths on the map so it's more a circle this makes for a choice once you go one direction as you wont be able to defend the points from the other side, hopefully this will encourage some more tactical play. ~Izzy @-&#39; 06:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Courtyard
A couple of things need changing in line with the king of the hill mechanics in HoH. Im not sure whether the discrepencies are intended but i will proceed to assume they are not.

1) Capture Resource timer on ghostly is 5 seconds in Courtyard, HoH is 3 seconds. The 5 second timer makes it very easy to prevent other teams from capping by interrupting once your ghost is dead. Of course, teams with song of concentration and ward of stability would be impossible to disrupt but not every team brings this type of utility with them. If the 5 second timer is kept in pace, teams might be forced to bring those 2 skills. Maybe the 5 second timer is intended to force teams to bring this sort of utility... was it?

2) Ghostly is easily blocked from reaching the top of the central altar. In the past players complained that blocking the ghost was too easy and maps like broken tower were often decided on who managed to get their ghost onto the altar first and who managed to block the enemy ghost from reaching the altar. There was a range of strategies for this... including speed boost on the ghost and runner with the ghost... galing the enemy ghost and physically blocking its path up to the altar... counter blocking by stopping enemy blockers from blocking your ghost's path. In HoH blocking the ghost has been made incredibly difficult, the ghostly is able to find paths around solo blockers. It takes a concerted effort of 2+ players to surround the ghost. Once the ghost nears the altar it doesnt necessary have to climb the altar to begin capping, ive seen ghosts attempt to cap when not even touching the altar. Best way to block ghosts is to attempt to do so before it even reaches the central chamber but by doing so blockers extend themselves away from their support. In courtyard it takes 1 player to stand at the foot of the stairs leading to the altar in order to block the ghost, and since the ghost needs to reach the top part of the altar before the capping starts. Almost everytime ive been on courtyard at least 2 ghosts get blocked. It is sometimes possible to prevent the ghost being blocked by blocking enemy blockers, but there are cases where there are far too many people surrouding your ghost. Notably when fighting a team of paragons, its extremely difficult to clear them away from your ghost. I dont hate this aspect of the map... it can be quite an interesting bit of play. But the problem is... is that newer teams will not be so experienced at dealing with blocks or blocking ghosts themselves. And its quite a long journey to get to courtyard so its not easy to get to and to learn this blocking minigame very easily. When broken tower was still in rotation in the old altar holding times... almost all teams experienced this aspect of altar maps very early on and so they became quite familiar with it quite fast.

Are these 2 factors intended to be part of the courtyard king of the hill fight? If so why? If not they need changing.--Lorekeeper 14:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

HoH Feedback
I know this is supposed to be about the new changes ... but I thought I'd add some feedback about HoH too... I'd really like to see the removal of the relic run from HoH. It is by far the most boring and repetitive map in all of HA ... it doesn't require much in the way of tactical play. And after a full match of tedium only the last 30 seconds matter anyway. Since so many other HA maps require movement control ... this map is not really pushing any diversity of builds either (every build already has two runners and at least one snare) so I think we can do without this one. I think cap points and koth is diverse enough to keep hoh interesting.
 * What if there was a new HoH map that allowed for greater movement in all game types on the map? Is it that the relic run is a boring game type or that the map is just bad for it? - [[Image:User Linsey Murdock sig.jpg]]Linsey talk 20:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * +1 for relic run out of HoH. It's boring, it's tedious, and -- more to the point -- it's not Guild Wars. Relic runs emphasize only a tiny subset of the skills in the game; the team that wins will be the team that builds for them, in general. I see a lot of teams running dual runners, sometimes with hex breaker, water eles, ward foes, etc. simply for these. While foes and water snares are certainly useful for other things, every serious HA team *must* include a water ele. This is a bit silly. Plus, with rubber-banding being as bad as it is, getting out of bodyblocks has more to do with random netcode glitches than any sort of player skill. Come to think of it, a suggestion to make combat more a part of relic run maps (and a sideways nudge at the prot-dominated monk metagame): While carrying a relic, you cannot be targeted by Enchantments or Weapon Spells. That way it would be more worthwhile to try to kill enemy runners rather than just power-running. --72.211.155.160 16:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Linsey, for King of the hill the map is fine since all thats needed for the map is the central altar. For relic runs the map is fine, its as simple as it can get, but the problem with the relic run is not the map but the mechanic itself. Remember the old style altar holding? The complaint there was that only the last moments of the match were the ones that mattered. And the rest of the mattered little. Tea break for most =) well its the same with relic runs. Noone really tries to steam ahead of the other 2 teams because doing so will invite a 2 team gank which will probably result in the team who tried to steam ahead to then fall behind the others. As it stands there is no incentive to actually run relics faster than other teams because the risk of doing so is so dangerous. Some kind of mechanic needs to be added that makes it attractive to run as fast as possible and to actually get ahead of the other 2 teams. But the incentive to do so needs to balance out the danger of being ganked by 2 teams who are determined to stop you from being so far in the lead. Extra bonus speed boosts for the leading team/more morale/faster skill recharges/faster skill usage/speed debuff for enemy teams. And make bonuses stack for every relic you are in the lead. I cant see any other way of making relic run a meaningful map as long as it involves 3 teams. Capture points suffers from a limitation in the map... the mechanic itself is fine, since it works relatively well on forgotten shrines and antechamber. The map limits the mechanic because there is only 1 neutral point for all 3 teams to capture, the central altar. For capture points to work there needs to be at least 2-3 neutral points for each team on the map. On forgotten shrines there are 2 teams and 3 neutral points. Same with Antechamber. In HoH capture points with 3 teams there needs to be at least 3 neutral points, not 1. By neutral point i mean points that dont act as ressurection shrines. The problem with the HoH map is that there isnt any more space for any neutral shrines without giving any team an inherent advantage. What you could do is to add more 'arms' to the HoH map. Make it look like a multi armed cross, almost like a star. Then you could place shrines at the end of these neutral 'arms'. The holding team would still have its home advantage because its ressurection shrine is very close to one of the neutral points... the 'invading' teams have a much longer journey to make to reach neutral shrines. --Lorekeeper 18:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd say the issue with relic run in HoH is that the gametype is one that's really optimized for 2-team games, not 3, for the exact reason that Lorekeeper mentions above - there's no incentive to try to pull ahead. Other than that, I love the relic run game type - it's one of the things that adds variety to the game play and makes it less monotonous. [[Image:User Aiiane-a.gif|Go to Aiiane's Talk page]] (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 20:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. Relic runs are better when each team can focus their power on each other.  Having a 3 way relic run takes whatever skill, strategy, and concentration is involved and just throws that away.  That's why Gank wins halls so much now, you know, in addition to the fact that only 4 teams are in HA at any given time.  Anyone who has played enough 3-way relic runs knows how utterly stupid and pointless it is. Shard 19:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Give teams fame for having to wait 12 minutes after a no opposing. It's no different than getting reward points for forfeits in ATs. 72.235.48.41 09:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

AoE imbalance ("nukers" flood HA, straight from PvE)
As you can see from opening obs, "nukers" are everywhere. For just 10 energy, they get to drop three DoT AoE "nukes" that would normally not be a problem, except due to the silly point of each map, we're forced to either stay in the AoE or lose (lose on capture point maps and alliance battle maps) - if PvP is supposed to be about skill over build, something has to be done about mindless nuking.

I don't think it's entirely skill imbalance (although I would prefer Savannah Heat being 15 energy, 10 at the very least), I think it's a poorly designed map plan. The maps we're playing in were designed over two years ago when AoE damage wasn't so brainlessly effective (press T -> press 1, 2, 3 - nuking should really be harder than that, but that's beside the point). When you stick teams in these tiny maps with nowhere to kite to and then give "nukers" such hugely effective (yet scarily skill-less) bars, you create imbalance. Remember Searing Flames? Yeah. Same shit, different spells. Nukers are as popular now as SF eles were 10 months ago (people take nukers with Flame Djinns haste in every "balanced" build imaginable because the damage is too much to pass up - hell, even spiritway groups take nukers from time to time). If the map changes aren't coming anytime soon, the nerf of SH/Searing/Teinei's Heat definitely should.

Aside from brainless nuking being entirely too effective, Trapping also dominates the HA game in the form of Spiritway. Forced into tight corridors and onto "cap points," people pretty much have nowhere to go as trappers decimate them with AoE damage and severely crippling conditions (pretty much every condition in the game minus cracked armor). The standard trapper counter that's always worked is no longer nearly as effective; simple wanding. R/Ps with Song of Concentration will stand in your face and lay a smoke trap, so you can't wand him or his trapping buddy as they lay the rest of their traps down on your team. Your team, meanwhile, is fettered by traps placed a minute and a half ago as they run around literally blind, trying to kill NR/Tranq/EW/Tox/Recovery/Life/Preservation/Recuperation before the rangers can put them down again. Traps are overly effective (although good trapping actually takes skill, unlike nuking, which takes no skill at all ever) because of the small quarters. I'm not nearly as worried about traps as I am about nukers (traps can't, you know, single-handedly wipe your entire team as they're snared by deep freeze), but they are still a problem that can't be ignored.

Nuking is simply OP, traps are less OP but still not balanced (in HA). The trapper problem can't really be solved unless you change the maps themselves (which you desperately need to do anyway, as power creep has increased damage and pressure of all builds tenfold, and thus map balancing is as crucial as individual skill balancing). - Auron 16:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Obligatory pix of nukage;, , . Won't bother uploading more, just open obs and see for yourself. - Auron 17:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * while I can understand your problem, I also find it nice to see that AoE damage actually does AoE damage and not -11 -11...target has run out of the spell that you took 3 seconds to cast. AoE damage dealing is generally ineffective, unless you are either lucky or very skilled, and these people seem rather skilled to me.Nicky Silverstar 11:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * yes it definetely takes a lot of skill to press T and 1, 2, 3 and then watch crowd of people die in choke where they NEED to stand
 * Yeah... they're unranked euros. That's about as far away from "skilled" as you can get. - Auron 22:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * To some extent, it's a paradox: if AoE doesn't do much damage, it's next to worthless for PvE and any elimination PvP. On the other hand, if it does do a decent amount of damage, it becomes exceedingly powerful for altar and capture point PvP. Perhaps it might be possible to make it less of a paradoxical problem by adding an aura that reduces (elemental?) damage in the area of such a "presence-necessary" area (e.g. altars/capture points), similar to the bonus auras on Elementalist Shrines in AB? That'd make what is otherwise a decent-damage AoE not nearly as devastating to people who are just trying to keep from getting swarmed over at a point they have to hold. [[Image:User Aiiane-a.gif|Go to Aiiane's Talk page]] (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 03:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I predict in the next large skill update, fire eles will get another buff. How do I know this? Check every major skill update.  Fire eles have never been nerfed.  Only DMG+++.  Maybe if you balanced the aoe skils, they wouldn't wipe teams effortlessly.  Game of skill my ass.  A five energy skill netting 250 damage area wide is more than retarded. 72.235.48.41 09:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, yes, they have been nerfed. Even Searing Flames was nerfed. It was then buffed again recently, but there have been nerfs to fire eles in the past. Please, if you're going to bring up past updates, at least do your research. [[Image:User Aiiane-a.gif|Go to Aiiane's Talk page]] (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 12:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Lol, yes nuking has been nerfed... see the alpha/beta Rodgorts Invocation. Hey, so it cost 40 energy .... radar-wide nuking ftw!

HA suggestions
I rarely have good ideas, so I generally keep them to myself, but this popped out in the middle of an argument and I was told it would be good.

The current big problem with HA is that the maps are horrid for claustrophobic people. This means that AoE, such as SF and SH, rules as king - which was not intended for PvP. The best solution to fix all the AoE problems is to draw new, larger maps. (This is not the genius idea, this is the prelude.)

Once that's done, HA becomes based on skill and skill alone. What this means, primarily, is that phoenix groups will rule king - they'll take halls and hold it all day long, because they have the skill to do so. While Guild Wars was indeed based around the idea that skill should win battles, not builds, this is a problem for newer people - once maps are balanced, what's to say you won't run into r12 groups every other battle? There will be no real way for more inexperienced players to win - and, by doing so, learn. (If they could gain experience without playing, that'd be something else entirely.) In GvG, the ladder pits you against similarly learned opponents (with the exceptions being when iQ, EW, QQ, etc. make new smurfs and start rolling lower-ranked guilds - but the ladder quickly ups them so, again, they're facing opponents around their level).

My proposal is to split HA into three separate maps - one for players ranked zero to five ("bambi land"), one for ranks six to ten, and one for ranks eleven plus. These could easily be named Mercenary's Ascent, Champion's Ascent, and Hero's Ascent, respectively.

I think redrawing the maps and splitting things up by rank would, combined, solve many of the problems associated with HA.

So that's the awesome idea I was ordered to report. Another idea I had - which I just thought of, so I wasn't given any opinions on it yet - was that, because people have second accounts and such, perhaps groups should be required to have a group with six or more people fitting the criteria for entry.

Oh, and no heroes for any of them. PvP was not meant to be Player verses Players And AI.

Armond 00:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Splitting the player base never is a good idea. This idea could work if there were enough HA players, but I doubt that. Your idea(s) would increase difficulties to find a team tremendously, leading to lesser people trying... - TeleTeddy 10:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Guild groups. Armond 04:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Lol .. I was just thinking that 2-5 'No Opposing Party' was entirely too convenient. Lets implement this suggestion and see if we can crank it up to 50!

Bring Kill Count Back
There are less and less teams in HA every day. (The only time you see a lot of teams is when there is a double fame weekend event) Even back when it was 6v6, there weren’t that many teams playing, and then it turned to 8v8 and there was a huge influx of people, which was nice because you didn’t constantly play the same people over and over again. Though after a few weeks, there were even fewer people then previously in 6v6. Now its got to the point where you can win Hall of Heroes and you’ll see a timer reset of 12 minutes, even twice in a row... this means waiting in Hall of heroes longer then your actually playing. Also, on top of this, You can play a team in the Underworld, beat them and then you'll be playing them again 2-3 maps later on, in burial mounds or unholy temple. Another popular scenario right now, which is happening more and more often is the following -> Team A(Your Team), is playing against Team B(Opposing team1) in the underworld, Your team wins. You move onto Fetid Ground. Team A(Your Team) Is now playing against Team C(Opposing team2), Your team wins and moves on. When your team finally reach Courtyard after having no skips you find Team A(Your Team) Vs the previous 2 teams (Team B & C) from underworld and Fetid ground. Both these teams have had skips to reach courtyard Team B could have skipped from UW, to golden gates to Courtyard, and team C could have skipped straight from UW to courtyard. Now team C hates Team A for whatever reason. If after a certain amount of time they do not have a chance of winning the altar cap because another team has too many points for them to try to catch up in with the time left. They will Gank Team A. Team A were leading in points but team B has now capped with just enough time to win. What happens next? Well team C Gank Team A, and obviously Team B doesn’t care that Team C are helping so it becomes 16 v 8, Team A is bound to die quickly, and they do. Team C then goes up to Team A's spawn point, Completely block their ghostly hero (Whom is really dumb at moving(Ghostly hero)... Even 1 person can bodyblock it in the right situation...) while Team B is obviously helping Team C to gank them because they’re now going to win since Team A cant cap and Team C doesn’t care that Team B is winning. People then flame each other and Team A /Resigns since theirs nothing they can possibly do against 16 people. In my opinion-bringing Kill count back into courtyard prevents most ganks like the previous example THIS HAPPENS A LOT! Let’s take the previous example as if it were a kill count. Team C Is losing by many points, they either do 1 of 2 things, Help Team B by helping kill Team A but then it becomes whoever gets the kills, but at least Team A isnt getting them. The second thing would be for Team C to tell Team B to kill them for “free points”. Team A however still has a chance at being able to also kill Team C and steal those “free points”. Also this way it becomes more of Team A vs Team B game rather then Team C + B ganking Team A while they spawn and cant do anything about it. This way if at anytime Team C gets the kill points Team B will kill team C giving team A time to re-spawn to kill Team B since it’ll be 8v8 for the next half a minute while Team C are running back over to Team A’s spawn point at least giving Team A a chance to gain kills. Kill count promotes more single team play rather then double team play on one team, since it really is possible for the losing team to gain the kills they need to win in 1 minute then it is for them to gain the points they need to win on an altar cap Preventing less ganks since they actually have a chance to still win. OblivionDanny 23:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

6 Player Teams + 6v6v6v6 in HoH
As some people have already mentioned on this page, myself included, HA is losing more people everyday… there is a lot of spam in ID1 searching for players because of the LOW amount of “pugs” there are to be found, since most teams these days are guild groups or alliance groups. However teams which are not made from their own guild/alliance espically the lower ranked people whom, can find themselves endlessly searching for people to join their team. Thus re-making HA Teams to 6 Players would solve this problem and possibly meaning more teams. If 6 Player teams would to be re-implemented it would also be interesting to add another team to HoH so it would be a 4way game. There is plenty of room to add a forth team and would make HoH a lot more interesting. OblivionDanny 23:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * People aren't quitting because of team sizes or number of teams. They're quitting it because it f***ing sucks.  Anet took something that wasn't broke, and they broke it.  Then they broke it again.  Then they almost fixed it for a week, then broke it again. 72.235.48.41 11:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I Didnt say people are quitting because of team sizes... I was saying because of the decline in people regardless of what they have or have not broken, that there simply is not enough teams in HA, and bringing 6 player teams is a possibly solution to this. OblivionDanny 13:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

how about you let us display r1 and r2 hero titles
so us low ranked people can find a team..... i spent 3 hours in HA today and couldnt even find a randomway team, nevermind a balanced team that would accept me (i am r2) 03:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)