User talk:Andrew Patrick/archive 1

User page layout

You were looking for a nice layout for your user page. You might want to scroll through the GuildWiki user pages in a popular list of nice user pages on my GuildWiki user page. You might just find something which you like. Besides, looking at the code of the pages teaches you a lot about wiki code. :) -- (gem / talk) 16:01, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Images

Hi!, i was going trough the list of unused file where i found this. If you dont need it please add {{delete|Dont need it}} to it. Tnx! :) ~ Kurd04:51, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Mwah!

-poke- File:Drago-sig.gif Drago 23:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Quick question

Is English your first language? Not to sound rude or anything but some of your page doesn't make much sense.--Eloc 23:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense to me... o.0 --Lemming64 23:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

"If you see him, give him cookies, because he is good people." That doesn't make much sense to me. It should read, "If you see him, give him cookies, because he is a good person."--Eloc 23:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

No, that's actually the correct usage of the phrase. Yes, it's weird, I know, but so is most of the English language =P Whether you're using it single or plural context, "good people" is correct in this particular expression. =P MisterPepe talk 00:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, saying "not to be rude" before making a rude comment doesn't really counter-act the rudeness...it just alerts the person you are talking to that there is a very good

chance the next few words you say will, in fact, be rude. ;) Andrew Patrick

GWW:NPA :) --Lemming64 06:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not violating GWW:NPA in any way. I am just asking a simple question and had the explanation because people are bound to ask for a reason behind a question like I asked.--Eloc 18:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Calm down? --Lemming64 00:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

?--Eloc 05:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice layout!

Hello there! Just wanted to say that your user space looks great. Foxysheri 22:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the kind words. :) I mostly stole..err..borrowed from other people, but I'm glad you like it. --Andrew Patrick

Ethical question for you...

Hi, Andrew... I have a friend who is in ZoS... And one day shortly after joining you guys, we saw his name in The Scribe's "random acts of kindness" which of course did not resonate as so "random" with those of us who know him. Isn't there an inherent conflict of interest in ZoS people giving ZoS people the award? --Karlos 22:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

When someone from ZoS, or any guild for that matter, is listed in The Scribe they are seen in local or trade chat in towns or in local chat in PvP, never guild chat and never alliance chat. The account "The Scribe" is on is not even part of the ZoS guild or alliance. If I happen to see someone who is in my guild doing something nice in an outpost, I am not going to not list them simply because they are in the guild my other account is in. If there was a set number of people listed in the RAoK section, I could understand the concern since the argument could be made that someone else doing nice things was not listed because someone in ZoS was "taking up the spot" so to speak, but I list every nice act I personally see so one person being listed does not mean another is not listed. So, with that in mind, what is unethical about listing a guild member? I would say it would be more unethical for me to ignore and dismiss things that would normally warrant listing in The Scribe based on someone's guild association. I guest with a few guilds in GvG and HA, have a rather extensive friends list and play in PUGs constantly, so should I also not include any of them if I randomly come across them doing something nice? If I suspected anyone of staging a "kind act" just to get mentioned I'm not going to list them, but other than that I treat every kind act the same regardless of my relationship or lack of a relationship with that person. So, in short, no, I do not find treating everyone the same regardless of what guild they are in to be unethical. :) --Andrew Patrick

I disgaree. I think it's a blatant conflict of interest. It's like a reporter in a news paper reporting that there is this brilliant new signing talent in town and not saying that the talent actually happens to be his brother. There is something called "full disclosure." A lousy channel like CNN still says that Warner Brothers the producers of the movie X are a part of Time-Warner which owns CNN. You might think this is "too insignificant" a thing to bother with full disclosure, but I disgaree with you. If you KNEW the person is from ZoS, then you owe it to the community to at least say, in the Scribe: X (who happens to be in the same guild as myself) was seen doing XYZ. Otherwise, people might suspect that there is favoritism going on. --Karlos 21:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The scribe is not a newspaper, or a tv station. I think drawing comparison to commercial reporting is a stretch personally. however you may disregard my comment as conflict of interest as I am also in ZoS. --Lemming64 23:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Given that the Scribe is not promoting the named individuals towards any given end, I'd think the concept of "conflict of interest" is not even relevant. If people were giving those listed in the Scribe rewards, contracts, et cetera, it'd be relevant, but that's not the case. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 23:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

How is saying that this person just commited an act of kindness not promoting the person and (indirectly) ZoS? When my name was on the Scribe (for the sunspear thing during the beta), I got heaps of PMs from people I never heard of chatting, congratulating and some asking what guild I was in and whether we were taking recruits. A guy from ZoS lists another guy from ZoS in a seemingly neutral and official outlet as being a great guy, people PM that great guy about what guild he's from (or see him in town and recognize the name) and they find out he's from ZoS... How is this not conflict of interest? --Karlos 00:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't even know who was behind the Scribe and what guilds the Scribe's other accounts are in until I read this. With that said, I still don't see any harm, since I also believe the RAoK thing is rather harmless on its own. Aside from the PMs, did you receive any gifts? I suppose this could be viewed as some sort of contest, where there's a clause about not allowing relatives or associates of employees from taking part. I would even say that guildies that you meet only in the game are on the same level as wiki contributors that you meet only in the wiki. Does that mean all wiki contributors should not be eligible for RAoK as well? The only time I see there might be a problem is when this occurs all too often. (and btw, disclosing the guild affiliation is an even worse idea, because it'll cause even more PMs for that user asking about the scribe) -- ab.er.rant 01:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

In terms of the prospect of abuse.. It's very obvious. A nod to a guildie... Adertisement for ZoS. How many people from ZoS have been mentioned in the Scribe... Now I am curious to know as it seems to be par for the course.

And yes, I believe the head of the committee handing out purple hearts should not hand the purple heart to his own son, the head of the Nobel prize organization should not give the Nobel peace price to his nephew. Those people withdraw from such positions when the nominee is a relative. I know the scribe is a much smaller thing, but the principle is the same, to me.

And Aberrant... The Scribe says right HERE on his own user page that he's in ZoS. So, it's not like a big secret. :P --Karlos 03:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I've got an excuse! I skipped the user page and jumped straight here :P anyway, like I said, under the same principle, the fact that we're sharing the same wiki does kinda associate us the same way a guildie is associated... does that mean I shouldn't be expecting any RAoK anytime soon? -- ab.er.rant 03:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

No Aberrant, you're not leet enough. :P Seriously though, knowing who he is and exchanging posts with him on wiki or Guru is not the same thing as being in the samge guild. --Karlos 04:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Though that would depend on the guild too though. There are people in my guild that I don't know and have only spoken to once or twice, and we have next to no members! - BeX 05:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but when said guildie wins HoH or is featured on The Scribe, you go: "Hey this guy is my guildie! Me and him go way back! I remember when I taught him how to play in HA..." right? :P --Karlos 07:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

If I have spoken to them once or twice, no. I would probably think hey I know them, but I wouldn't announce it anywhere and I'd congratulate them privately. - BeX 12:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

You said the guy had been in the guild for a day, this probably means he didn't even know the guy in question as there are about 10 officers with the rights to invite. So while he shared the same guild tag, that is probably about the extent of it. Also I think Gaile has made it pretty clear where they stand and that should be an end of it to be honest. While you may still disagree your point has been made, and heard. --Lemming64 15:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I did not say the guy has been in the guild for a day. I said "shortly after" (in this specific case it was a couple of weeks) and either way, the "tag" is pretty obvious, especially if it's yellow. --Karlos 00:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent) sorry, I misread the "one day" bit. The tag wouldn't be yellow, the scribe account is not in the guild. --Lemming64 00:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you know about the ~~~~?

If you type "~~~~" you will automatically insert your signature. See GWW:SIGN for some more information to get your sig up and running. I have the impression you sign your comments by typing the link to your userpage yourself, correct? Oh, and please make sure you log in, since we want to make sure that people who are editing A.Net employees pages are legitimate editors. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 20:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

ULGG

Seeing as how your the only person I know of who is in the ULGG, can you answer this quick question? I cannot sign up to ULGG site because I use yahoo email. What free email DO they allow? Counciler 23:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm well I am not a member of their guild, so I'm not sure. Is there a site admin or contact for them listed? --Andrew Patrick 23:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Contact Zerris. He is no longer in ULGG, but he knows everyone there, and he just left a few months ago or so. Readem Warning: Ignore this User if at all possible. 23:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

ima report u for fail — Skuld 13:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Temporary RA/TA change?

Hey. Just wanted to know when/if these HB maps are supposed to be removed. Kind of would like to know when I can RA again, if ever. Pluto 00:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Guild Wars World Championship 3

Hi this is Agrias from Te/sA/peso. The top PvP community and I started a petition for Anet to hold GWWC3. The petition can be read here Petition QQ Forums. I also emailed you so please take the time to consider it and get back to me when you can.

Suggestion

Hey Andrew, nice user-page! I've been posting this suggestion on many forums without getting any direct answer or consideration so I figured I'd post it here since you're the man in-charge: Giving Fragility AoE would give Fevered Dreams and conditions-based builds more viability since condition removal/counters have been very buffed lately (better recharge, mending touch, extinguish=martyr, cautery signet, and all the other newly added non-elite condition-removal skills), I suggest giving it the same range as Fevered Dreams'effect. 85.168.232.8 00:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

You might want to post this under Izzy's talk page. Whereas skills are more of Izzy's job. :) - Drago 06:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Drago is correct, for specific skill-related suggestions Izzy is your man. :)--Andrew Patrick 18:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't sure where to put this, but i was wondering if it would be possible to add an "inventory locking feature." Basically what it would do, is if you choose to do so, you can lock specific items into certain slots in your inventory. This would just be a really nice feature to have because I'm one of thoes monks that focus swap like crazy, and play with my backpack open, so i can manually swap shields and what not. Basically, what I'm looking for in this "inventory locking feature" is, no matter how many times i swap to different sets etc, that item will always end up back in that spot. --(Problem. 00:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC))

Players Vs. AB

Hi, Andrew, just thought I'd drop my two cents about one of the new HA maps that was put into rotation. I think it's called Antechamber or Forgotten Shrines, one of the two. Ok, to start off, I tend to play HA sort of erratically, so I may or may not know exactly everything, but it seems to me that this map screams Alliance Battles. It's 8v8 AB basically, pushed into HA. It's really not fitting of HA, since it basically forces your team to split up and cap points....(Hmm...AB...). I don't really agree with that being in where it is. After all, HA teams generally don't accomadate well to big split up situations, some do, but spike groups, or groups that can't function apart well, cannot. I went on a few runs with a group of pals a few days ago, and we we're doing really good, beating down teams left and right, and just generally having fun, and then it happened. We stumbled onto this map, and the general sound on vent, was a two word expletive, "Oh no." Suffisive to say, that every time we hit this map, the team fell apart because it seemed that we couldn't function well as lots of smaller groups as opposed to other maps where we'd whoop tail. I pose a question, why did ANet replace the kil count map, with this horrendous thing? It scares me. AB in HA...- Drago 06:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
This is an opinion, not fact, feel free to provide response, but do not flame or ostracize my opinion.

I'd brace yourself for asking for Killcount back mate. ;) Killcount was not a particularly popular part of HA while it was in. Many players, myself included, felt that it greatly limited the types of builds that would efficiently work in HA. Teams that kill things fast work great in straight 1v1 battles as well as battles with priests, and in kill count, they down-right dominated. The capture point maps, however, encourage more balanced and adaptive builds that rely on more than just raw damage output. When you enter HA, you need to think about every match you are going to fight in on your way to the Hall of Heroes, and the more those types of battles are different, the more you need to take into account when choosing a build. If it was alter caps the whole way, everyone would take a holding build. With so many maps (especially maps you get to early on in a run) that you would pretty much be guaranteed to win with a mass-damage spike, degen/pressure builds we're all but killed. The diversity in builds I have seen since the change speaks loudly in the favor of this change, but I could be mistaken.

Now, that's just my take on things. By all means, feel free to discuss this. I will say that in polls on this topic, generally 60% or more of those polled were in favor of killcount being removed, but again, you are free to debate it. --Andrew Patrick 18:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I by no means was saying to re-instate killcount, I was merely pointing out that in my opinion(and I don't know if I stated it clearly or not, I think I was being overly wordy) that this type of AB isn't suited for HA. I'd like something better like... maybe Capture Point maps, but with more people, more points, say.... 4 teams with say...7 capture points. It'd atleast make for a more interesting battle, than just a "Haha, we can cap better than j00." map with 2 teams. - Drago 19:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
This is an opinion, not fact, feel free to provide response, but do not flame or ostracize my opinion.

A lot of people had some reservations about these maps at first, but most seem to like them now--certainly more than kill count. If you take a build that is prepared to split, I think you will find these to be cool maps. I have been on both sides of this...on a team that can't split and against a team that can't split. In both cases (even though of course I was annoyed at the one I lost heh) it was clear that the map was effectively encourage build diversity. Again, if every map encouraged a team to stay in a tight bubble and just kill things fast, everyone would run a spike with warders and aegis or something, but knowing they will need to split, they need to make it so their team isn't a "one trick pony" so to speak. Not to say you are wrong, I just don't personally share your dislike for these maps. --Andrew Patrick 18:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

word. -FireFox File:Firefoxav.png 21:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Hero Battles

I was wondering if there are any plans to improve HB in the near future? Currently it's the most imbalanced PvP format in the game and despite this we aren't seeing any updates at all. The main motivation for top players to continue playing HB are the reward points and prizes in the monthly tourney, most of them agree that the format itself is not fun to play at all. Despite all the problems with the AI that people report we hardly see any updates for them. When it comes to AI using specific skills incorrectly there haven't even been any updates at all to my knowledge. Instead of creating more diversity, the update to the shrine morale system made things even worse and forced people into using either an assassin or recall-based build. We really need to see some significant changes to the format and preferably sooner than later. Simply tweaking the morale rate by changing one variable isn't suddenly going to make people play differently. --Draikin 23:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

What sort of updates are you wanting? Balance updates, or a complete re-working of the HB objectives, maps, and format? --Andrew Patrick 00:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Nerf Recall, and make individual kills more effective the capping. Readem Warning: Ignore this User if at all possible. 00:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Nerfing Recall won't help...ATM there is basically TWO builds that are run...nerfing one of them will just force EVERYONE to use the other, so IMO leave recall as it is and fix the rest of it. In reply to Andrew in all honesty i think a total rework wouldnt be a bad idea, but then thats very unlikely (and who's to say that wouldnt be exploited like the current system). The SP sin nerf which was fairly heavy as far as it could have been, didnt really make a difference, people just switched out expose for Siphon Speed, changed maybe 2 hero skills and its GG carry on. I think there should be different map styles, rather than just capture points. Much like HA is atm where you have to prepare for different situations. As it is now its basically the same situation with different tree's to look at, so one build works, and people have no need to use anything different. By giving people more situations to deal with then i imagine builds would become more diverse. --ChronicinabilitY 01:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Andrew, preferably we need a complete reworking of the HB objectives. Currently the format simply doesn't allow you to use a balanced build. I think shrine running in a 4v4 format is simply a bad idea, it's difficult enough to balance a team with 4 characters so when you have to control up to 4 shrines on the map you're going to run out of options on which characters you can bring along. That's why you're seeing heroes like D/P or E/D Mystic Regen tanks, R/P Heal as One and W/R Melandru splitters, which can camp a certain shrine since they don't die easily in a 1v1 fight. The devs can tweak the morale rate all they want, but as long as you need to split a hero from your team assassins will be there to spike them down. Making individual kills more effective will simply mean you're going to reward assassins more. I don't like the idea of adding new maps with different objectives while keeping the old shrine maps either: It's not like in HA where you can only run one build that has to complete different objectives, here you can change builds before every battle. Even if the maps would always be random, people will simply run the build that can both cap and fight 4v4 which just happens to be the assassin builds that they're running now. Personally the only real solution I see is removing the morale meter altogether (no more points gained from any shrine) and changing the objectives so that you're not forced to split your team in order to win. Furthermore, the AI finally needs to get some updates so that they learn to use more skills correctly (there's a reason practically nobody uses Zealous Benediction on their hero monks). After the GW:EN updates, the AI actually got worse with for example heroes now completely messing up their pathing when spirits are nearby, or heroes not immediately responding to the flags you set because they now refuse to cancel the skills they're using (always fun when they're standing in Searing Heat). --Draikin 20:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

What degree reworking is feasible/likely? --24.206.111.186 06:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I talked to James Phinney, and he says they are open to any sorts of suggestions. It's hard to say what "degree" or reworking is likely, but keep in mind it isn't just a matter of someone rewriting a line of code, there is design time, code time, time to test the changes, etc. Not to mention, with any change, there will be those who like it, and those that hate it, so there is never one almighty "right way" to do something that makes everyone happy. In short, feel free to make suggestions and the designers can assess which are both possible and good for the game. --Andrew Patrick 17:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Pipedream: Smaller maps, so we can can properly control heroes regardless of where they are. Reusing outpost or arena maps would be fine. Alternate: increase view/control radius.
• Limit the number of spirits per team both in HB and in the arenas. In particular, they are vexing in HB because of the pathing problems. (granted, not too many people run spirit heavy builds at present, but they could return in the right conditions.)
• An end or reduction to shrine tag. A variety of suggestions have been made on how to do this.
• A form of sealed play. (could be as simple as generating a list of skills at the end of every AT, and locking those not in the list for HB.) Bonus: the system could be reused for special weekends of GvG/TA play.
• Failing that, a list of skills which can be brought into rated HB that only change as needed. For example, you could kill off the assassin bars + recall to spark some innovation without effecting the rest of the game.--24.206.111.186 18:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree on reducing the map size and limiting spirits, but disallowing certain skills won't solve the problems with the format itself. Here's what I'm thinking:

• Remove the morale meter
• Don't let the mercenary count as an extra player when capping shrines anymore
• Nerf the Battlecry shrine (it's overpowered, remove the 25% speed buff)
• Introduce a "Victory or Death!" mechanism to break a stalemate
• Don't let teams hold more than three shrines
• Let the Central shrine give a morale boost instead --Draikin 02:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I would definitely like to see hero AI improvements. Of course, my heroes are for some reason dumber than the average (ie my monk will never use elite, including SoR, even though I've seen others using in same situations. Monk even ignores direct command to use skill, instead stopping any action until death). Also the fact that heroes aren't even capable of playing sins at all is annoying, meaning you can only be a sin if you want to have one on your team among other things. General hero AI seems to have been going downhill for a while and it would be nice to see some improvements. Although I'm sure the people that B---h about heroes in gvg, etc. will be pissed off that now the mediocre AI they couldn't beat before is better. 76.102.172.202 20:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

What I don't understand is why nothing is being done to improve a broken and imbalanced format which after all still has it's own ladder and tournaments. I'm not sure what the devs had envisioned when they came up with the idea for Hero Battles, but I don't think it consisted of people playing nothing but assassins, spirit spam and Recall builds. The last update for HB was three months ago, and it basically came down to changing two variables in the game code. People have constantly been giving feedback on problems[[1]] but we have been completely ignored. I've been discussing this with a lot of other top 100 players and everyone is disappointed and frustrated with the lack of updates. A lot of them would like to play something besides assassins and recall monks but the format simply doesn't allow for balanced builds to exist. The monthly tournament is over so the devs now have a chance to finally get something done before the next monthly tournaments. --Draikin 13:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

PvP and Player Skill

A lot of people I know who are very involved in high-end PvP (GvG, HA, etc), and they are all of the opinion that Guild Wars is too passive and too defensive. The recent nerfs/buffs (depends on your POV :P) to aegis, blurred vision, etc are a good step in the right direction, but more needs to be done. Spiritway is still too viable and takes a build specifically designed to be able to take care of these teams, which limits options and creativity. Besides the rampant use of these cookie-cutter, set and forget builds, the defensive mechanics outside of the monk profession are often stacked. IE, any combination of the following can be found on almost any GvG team: the flagger brings Blurred, there is a blind bot, anti-melee hex, warder, DA paragon, shields up, and many other defensive measures. One of these on a team is good, but I am seeing teams that are completely reliant on these defensive measures to stay up. When two of these super-defensive builds go against each other, it's a terribly boring match.

To resolve this I'd suggest making skills more active. But how to do that is a really good question. With the later expansions the defensive options have increased greatly. Making changes would be a very delicate procedure, and difficult as well. I can't imagine trying to make DA more active, the same with wards. But if you guys find a way, and it's implemented, I'd imagine that we'd see more exciting games with new builds. I'd also predict that players with more skill would shine versus teams using cookie cutter builds.

Izzy is the skill balancer. Antiarchangel 00:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

But Andrew Patrick is the pvp community coordinator. Maybe people don't really know the difference. I am under the assumption that Mr Patrick is the Gaile Gray for pvpers. Nerf all overpowered gimmicks plz, this is supposed to be a competitive game, not a button mashing game. Shard

I do relay skill related issues to Izzy and the designers, but posting directly on Izzy's talk page is another great way to let your concerns be heard. --Andrew Patrick 23:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Add a new mass-pvp instance to Guild Wars

A suggestion I would like to make is to add a new "mass PvP" instance to Guild Wars. Alliance battles and Fort Aspenwood were a lot of fun (the latter especially), but they came out in Factions, and are getting a bit long in the tooth now. How about something new to reinvigorate people's interest? I'm talking about something for casual players here, not a new competitive format.

Consider adding a map which supports a larger number of players, where they can join individually, rather than as a group (although you could join as a group with your friends also if you wanted). I'm sure you're familiar with WoW, so consider adding an "Alterac Valley" equivalent, at least with respect to there being a lot more people around, individuals can join and leave whenever (this is optional, but probably for the best if the map is to be a long drawn out battle), while completing different objectives on different parts of the map. The map should be reasonably large so that it doesn't feel cramped, and that there is a sense of an actual frontier.

PvP provides endless entertainment, because it is player-created content. As a casual format, it will also make it easier for players to get involved in the more competitive aspects later on -- something that has been alluded to for GW2. Vain 17:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Large-scale PvP is something that is planned for GW2 but I don't think the likelihood of a new format being added to Guild Wars is very high. Alterations, tweaks, and changes to the current styles of PvP are possible, but entirely new formats take artists, programmers, designers, QA...pretty much the entire development team, and they will be keeping themselves quite busy working on Guild Wars 2. --Andrew Patrick 23:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I should add that it might not even be *possible* to have people just plopped into instanced PvP. While I absolutely adore the idea (I was hoping NF would bring this...) I just wouldn't imagine it would be practical or possible. Vael Victus 16:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

AB

→ moved from User talk:Gaile Gray

I don't know if I'm the only one that feels this way, however personally I think that the alliance battle stages at both ends of the scale, are stupid and aren't fun to play on. It seems silly to give people as large an advantage as the base defenders have just because they aren't good enough to win a round. Its obnoxious for example to fight on kurz furthest territory half the time because they never win (or at least not for very long). If people aren't able to win in a normal setting, then they deserve to lose, not be given benefits until the better player loses anyways. Just wondering if a possible revamp of this system would be possible, maybe making it a little less of an advantage on furthest stages? 76.102.172.202 01:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

What are you suggesting? Tone down the advantages so that the fight always remains on that one map for long periods of time? And then you'll start complaining that you always win and would like a random change of maps... -- ab.er.rant 02:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I actually quite enjoy playing on the deep maps, occasionally, simply for the variety. I would like AB to be 12v12, instead of 4+4+4v4+4+4, though. --Edru viransu 02:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like a mustache. Anet, Gaile, get crackin'. Readem Warning: Ignore this User if at all possible. 02:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, even the end maps don't generally wind up giving a huge advantage if the attacking team has any idea what they're doing. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 02:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You'd have to hit puberty first Readem :P

/signed with OP on this one. Kaanai and Ancestral lands are just dumb. If you can't win on saltspray or the slightly pitched maps, you deserve to be faction fodder for the other team. The only problem with that is it increases the difficulty of farming the required 10k faction for befriending the kurz/lux quest. Maybe they could bump up the faction reward for quests in the area and not have AB be so mandatory?

@Aiiane; I disagree. I've been on attacking teams that had a clue (8 of the 12 were full-guild teams running strong split builds), and we *barely* won at kaanai; our skill was far greater than the other team, but the map (and the difficulty of claiming and holding the two in-base points) pitched the battle to a point where it just wasn't fun. If I could get a team of 12 organized (like Edru's idea), I would do AB more often; but since I can only screen me and 3 others, AB is enter-and-pray; not a fun way to play guild wars. If I wanted to do Random Arenas, I'd do Random Arenas. -Auron 02:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep, 12v12 would definitely make it much more interesting. -- ab.er.rant 02:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

A little addition to my previous suggestion concerning 12v12, if perhaps some would prefer 4+4+4v4+4+4, keep AB as it is, but increase Guildhall party size to 12 and make it possible to enter 12v12 ABs from there. --Edru viransu 02:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe even keep it 4-4-4, but give parties the option to "hook together", so that they make sure they'll all get into the same map. For people that don't want to search for 11 teammates, they can jump into a 4-man group and wait for a battle; those that want particular teammates can connect with another 4-man group (or two), and wait for the next round to start. Or even, two 4-man groups, with the last group being random as always, out of the 4-man groups that didn't bother to hook up with another group. -- Ĵĩôřũĵĩ Đēŗāķō.>.cнаt^ 02:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a better way to compromise between 12v12 and 3 teams of 4 versus 3 teams of 4 than my idea. --Edru viransu 02:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

12v12 is bad, then you end up with degenerate stuff like 4xLoD or dual orders, LoD + 10 rangers. --Tankity Tank 03:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

RSpike, just split them. The LoD thing is a problem more with LoD than anything, if it would even end up as a problem. --Edru viransu 15:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Dunno. I have a lot of fun with Ancestral Lands on offense, personally. And a pretty decent record, too, but that's probably because I tend to stop when I feel like the map is "cold." The variety of non-respawning, computer-controlled characters and the bigger emphasis on architecture serve to really differentiate Ancestral Lands and Kanaai from the other three maps. They're pretty lame on defense, though (since they seem to encourage mob-y or turtle-ish strategies and the defenders get a very crappy reward for winning, anyway). Giving the attackers a few NPCs might both balance the maps and spice things up. (Also, ideally, it should be harder to take both res shrines in one massive offensive.) — 130.58 (talk) 04:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Well the whole point is that it isn't balanced. -elviondale (tahlk) 05:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

which is ridiculous. In something nearly equivalent to RA to give one side that large an advantage is just unbalanced. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:76.102.172.202 .

I lol when I see someone dictating what is and isn't ridiculous in a game they didn't design. The maps are designed to give an advantage to the defender, learn to live with that. --Tankity Tank 10:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how it does not make sense that the defending team would already have fortified their position and thus, be at an advantage. You want superb balance, with both teams on equal footing? Go somewhere else. There are plenty of other places in PvP where balance is given top priority. Counciler 20:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It could be a little bit more balanced. Right now, the game is already trying to maintain balance, just in a different way: the defenders get a pretty pitiful faction per win, as a way to compensate for the fact that they're supposed to be winning more often. Between that and the stacked odds, playing defense on these maps is just plain boring. Strip away just some of the defenders' advantage and you can start giving them more points per win again. — 130.58 (talk) 01:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent) As you may be aware, Andrew Patrick is our newly-appointed PvP specialist. While I admit that AB bridges PvE and PvP, this is a case where I'd very much like to have him involved in the discussion which, incidentally, I think is a good one! I am moving this to his page and hope that we can continue there. --Gaile 22:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

12v12 might make me actually look at AB. -FireFox File:Firefoxav.png 23:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice, a new discussion. :) The defender-advantage is an intentional device used to keep AB more balanced an interesting. Without it, we would likely see less shifts from one side to the other which means less map variation. From a "story" standpoint, it makes sense since, tactically, defenders almost always have the advantage of being dug in/fortified. From a "gameplay" standpoint, it prevents one faction from pushing the other all the way back, and the battle never leaving that map. I have won in the furthest enemy map, and I have also lost in our furthest map, so it is certainly not impossible to do. --Andrew Patrick 23:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It isn't impossible, but it also isn't fun. I've won on kaanai as kurzick against absolutely terrible luxon teams, and lost on kaanai with absolutely terrible kurzick teams (winning didn't rely on outskilling the other team, it relied alot on luck and getting the other 11 players to not be retarded, i.e., not leeroy into mobs - and in AB, getting someone to not be retarded is nigh impossible).

I don't dislike the idea of pitched maps - it makes sense, both from the lore perspective and gameplay perspective. I'm just complaining about the ridiculous amount of pitched-ness on Kaanai and Ancestral. I'd say move the cap points outside the base or remove the doors on each base to improve balance just a bit (either way, the moved cap points should be close to the home team spawn point; it would still be relatively easy to cap for the home team, but not as absolutely gimme as it is now). -Auron 01:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Or make the west-side res shrines more defensible, perhaps? — 130.58 (talk) 01:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The 12 people that play on ancestral aren't always going to be as good as the people that pushed it from grenz so its not like the whole luxon army is good just some of them were and then you end up playing with crappy teams at ancestral. A random grouping of teams cant really be called better or worse and therefor one shouldn't get such a huge advantage. Ancestral and the luxon equivalent should be eased up a little bit for the attacker maybe making the wall defenses not as powerful or making the shrines a bit more equal. Also if the gate gets fixed while luxon people are inside it they should be able to open it from the inside instead of getting stuck. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:75.36.177.172 .

Could you add something for AB that is what TA is to RA please? The organised format would be very interesting to play on. — Skuld 13:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Skuld. Split AB into what it is right now and a 12 vs 12 battle. All the casually players wouldn't complain because they still have the old pick up group AB format and more serious pvp players get to pick from a 12 vs 12 setting now. Antiarchangel 23:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Wait times are already an issue on the Kurzick side. Don't you think splitting it in half would only exacerbate that problem? --Andrew Patrick 00:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that it would have a relatively minor affect, because the people who come to current AB are generally not the people who would be attracted to 12v12 AB. Also, why is it that the Luxon's get in on the first or second try and it takes as much as 10 minutes for the Kurzicks? --Edru viransu 00:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Generally because there are more Kurzick players than Luxons. Also most addressing the wait time issue most people who AB for the fun of it in pick up groups or for faction won't be affected much as getting faction would be much faster with a pick up group. Getting a group of 12 coordinated people takes time and will more likely attract the kinds of players who play GvG and Ascent. Antiarchangel 00:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that is a bold assumption. I know there are a lot of alliances that are very heavy in AB who would shift to the more organized type, lowering the number of players in regular AB. You also have to realize that removing the random aspect would open up a big can of worms in regards to gimmick builds. The game is balanced with 8v8 in mind, and in a 12v12 scenario, even in a arena that is split-heavy, a lot of problems could present themselves. Skills that used to only effect your 4 party members now effect all 12 of you. Teams could go in with 12 monks and find a way to just tank their way to victory since capping plays an important role. I'm not saying it is entirely improbable, and I will ask about it, but I don't think it is as much of a "perfect solution" as some of you seem to. There would be new concerns brought up by it, it would split the AB community, and while it may bring in new people who would otherwise be playing GvG and HA, now you are diverting people from one area to another, posing a risk of longer wait times in those types of PvP. This is all pessimistic "worst case scenario" thinking, but it should be kept in mind...Again, I am not saying it is a bad idea, it just has problems associated with it since AB was not made to be played that way.--Andrew Patrick 01:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the 12 monks, you have issues with people going in with 4 monks and trying to do that now. Perhaps to deal with the potential issues with partywide skills being imbalanced in a 12 person team, have it broken up into 3 teams of 4 like AB currently is or maybe 2 teams of 6, but two teams can "link" themselves in some way to make certain that they get together. I suppose that might be somewhat complicated to implement. Splintering of the playerbase is always an issue with adding a new gametype, of course. I'm just disappointed to see a gametype with as much potential as AB doomed to be on a level with RA. --Edru viransu 02:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

12 man team Battles are a bad idea. GvG already has issues because constantly maintaining and fielding a team of 8 can be quite cumbersome. Fielding a competitive team of 12 will be extremely difficult. If you can select 12 players you have to carefully pick 12 players to be successful. What really needs to happen with ABs is to reverse the damage done by the reward change. Giving a bonus for winning on maps you have a disadvantage on is good. Having next to no reward if your team loses is bad. Winning and losing is very often out of the hands of the player. Since teams are random there is very little you can do about the incompetence of other players. Part of what makes AB a good entry/casual format is the fact that you get something regardless. Penalizing the loser to discourage inactive play is bad, rewarding active players is better. -Warskull 05:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Once some sort of anti-leeching code is in the game I'd really like to see the penalty for losing on a friendly map removed. The only thing the penalty did for my friends was make us resign spike when the other teams are bad, and that just hurts our side more. --Tankity Tank 11:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

While I am sure AB acts as an entry point to PvP and many GvG players see it as merely that, there are many people who prefer AB to any organised PvP. Compare this to WoW which is more successful than GW and all of it's PvP is either done in the game world, or unorganised showing unorganised PvP has much more appeal than organised - I can run pretty much any build I want in AB and have great fun, sure some builds are better than others but most builds do the trick. Compare this to GvG or HoH where there is a very limited meta showing mostly the same builds and strategies all through it, and those who don't follow the norm are either incredibly good and apply ecentric strategies to win - and in some cases more skill, or stay down lower on the ladder. AB is where the meta doesn't really matter, if you are a better player than the others chances are you can win, at least the fight, the match depends on your team. Making AB organised would be the death to this arena. Where then should any casual PvPers go to have a quick fight? RA? AB, at least to me, isn't an "introduction" to PvP - it's THE PvP for GW. I can go there when I want and jump into most groups and have fun without worrying about a ladder or being in the right guild or having the right title rank. Making this arena organised would be horrible as it would ruin it for most of the people who play there. I have been in many of the FF Luxon guilds over time and I have seen how they play - they don't usually go in as guild groups, they are all over the place. Even when they do go in groups they usually split up anyway. Don't make this arena one big team, that would kill it. 58.106.236.159 08:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Kill The Kill

It saddens me greatly to see thread on guru about PvP dying, in which people don't discuss if it is dying or not, but rather speculate how long it has been dead for. It saddens me because it is true. There have been many reasons given for why and how it has come to this, and I think any rehashing of these would be futile. Instead, I would take a different approach, and ask what aspect of PvP is still doing well. The answer to that will be Fort Aspenwood and ABs. Now these would not even be considered PvP by the vast majority of players, and for good reason. How could these two game types be anything even remotely close to serious PvP considering their random grouping nature. They are a joke, and still they do better than HA and GvG, managing not only to retain their players, but also get new ones, and last but not least, for a small number of people, they serve as a step on the way to the higher end PvP.

Lets take a look at why these areas are doing so well when compared to the other PvP types, and why they seem to better attract and retain players: Firstly we have feedback. Feedback in high end GW PvP is harsh, much like in chess. Any piece lost makes it harder for you to win and easier for your opponent to beat you, and in GW, both DP and other scoring mechanisms have much of the same effect. In ABs and Fort Aspenwood, there is very little feedback, if any. Death incurs only a small time penalty, and in all fairness can even prove to be a blessing as it disperses the teams and acts as a fast move from one point to another. Points are contested, but the ration of contested point over total is very small. On average, you will never get more than 3/7 shrines contested at any given time, and such disputes are usually solved in the course of 3-4 ticks. That represents a very small amount of points of the total needed to win. A lead in point sin no way offers an advantage to the currently wining team, and comebacks are more than possible. Compare this to HA, or GvG, where any mistake will cost you dearly, where loosing just one team member seconds before the 2 minute mark can mean a total wipe, and where DP seriously punishes a team. Secondly we have goal. It may seem absurd, but there is a big psychological difference between having to kill other players as the only way to achieve victory and some other indirect goal. Sure, killing players in ABs and Aspenwood is a big part of the game, but it is not everything the way it is in HA and GvG. Think of boxing versus golf... humans are culturally and socially conditioned against direct aggression, and it will leak into games such as this. Granted, there are still urges, which is why some love PWNing, but for the majority, killing and owning are simply not as desirable. It might sound care-bear, but it is nevertheless true. Even in the case of special event games such as dodgeball, which are essentially the same as regular gameplay where you kill the other players, the sugary coating of the childhood game makes it far more approachable for the casual crowd. Last but not least, setting aside the kill pretty much takes the numbers out of the game. When you are no longer thinking in terms of base 480 HP + Runes + inscriptions / DPS, experimentation and personal preference comes into play. When the objective is to kill, people will crunch the numbers and use whatever is more efficient. When those numbers go out of the door, people will start using skills for any number of reasons, which can even extend as far as absurd things such as preference for the skill icon.

I've seen this question asked a lot of times but I have never seen an answer: Why does A.net insist on forcing random grouping in things such as Aspenwood, ABs, SnowBall Fights, Dodgeball, etc. How hard would it be to have a separate NPC that will take you to an identical area where there is team grouping? Why don't they do this for at least a weekend every now and again. All of these game types are fantastic at their core, and the only thing spoiling them is the random grouping. Once again, the issue is not to force team grouping, but rather to offer the option. On that note, why isn't there an option to play the "Hero Battle' game type with 4 humans per team? No points, no titles, no nothing, just let us play, I think it would be amazingly fun, but controlling 4 characters at the same time is just retarded for lack of a better word. Seriously, I want to know why you are gimping yourselves like this? I understand that creating new content =$ but we're talking about using content that's already there, it's minimal effort, with a potential huge payload, but it has never been tried.

Frankly, I have given up hope for GW1, because while intense competition is entertaining, and challenging and stimulating, ultimately it is like flexing a muscle... you can only do it for so long, and beyond a certain point it just won't happen. Unfortunately, GW went down the kill kill kill road and never looked back, and the game got lost in the numbers, while missing out on a lot of great posibilities that would have changed the game dramatically and made it far more fun while still keeping it serious. You might say I'm full of it, but just imagine a few things: - what would it be like if the blind condition actually caused your entire screen to go dark, or very murky. Sure, it would have affected casters a lot more than it currently does, but it would have added a lot to the experience, and overall feel of the game. - what would it be like if dazed gave the drunk effect and highly distorted sound effects and simply rearranged all skills on your bar randomly, instead of the double cast and easy interrupt effect? - what would it be like if there was an effect in the game called 'vertigo' that simply changed what your left/right up/down keys did on the keyboard. No damage, no debuff, no numbers, just a simple temporary key switch. - what would it be like if you had an effect called 'bravado' on you, which you could not see but everyone else could, which made you think you only took half as much damage as you actually did... how about a 'cowardice' one that made you think you took twice as much. - what would GvG look like if the map was basically two versions of the Kurzick Fort Aspenwood map, with a repair kit/explosive keg station in the middle. No thief, no flag running, no DP, but all other aspects of GvG being the same. Would it be better? Would it be worse? Would more people play it rather than the current system, and if so, why? - how about a game type that is the same as the Maguuma jungle PvE mission where your team competes with another team to cap shrines using crystals? - how about a game type where you have to drag your team mate's corpse using rebirth all the way to your side of the map to score a point? Adding the new 3 way relic runs and Shrine cap maps to HA has gone a long way to making it a more versatile, better balanced game type, and it shows. Unfortunately, it just isn't enough anymore because of the massive migrations towards GvG and to other games, but this is definitely the way to go. Killing, and anything related to it will always be an important part of the game, but it does't have to be everything. Currently there's just too much serious in GW PvP and not nearly enough Fun. Things like Snowball manage to be entertaining while sill being serious PvP if taken as such. I've seen both hardcore PvPers and people on trial accounts enjoying them, even with the god awful random grouping and dwayna/grenth imbalance. They're easy to pick up and teach a lot of the Core PvP feats such as timing, anticipation, kiting and team coordination, while coming across as nothing except a casual game./endmassiverant --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:92.80.33.209 .

lolwut -FireFox File:Firefoxav.png 23:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

AB, Ft. Aspenwood, and the RA survive because they are random. It's casual friendly. If you could engineer a full group in aspenwood or AB, the game would fall apart. Not only would holes open up in the design of these modes, but casual people in grab-and-go groups would get insta-pwned the same way they are in HA.

The answer, I think, is to somehow make grab-and-go groups viable. The grab-and-go groups in back in the very early days of GW worked out fine because most everyone was equally stupid about it. There should be a way to match up grab-and-gos vs. grab-and-gos and 'leet vs. 'leet, with the two segregated sufficiently. (the move to from TA to RA is not sufficient, which is why most RA groups disperse rather than enter TA, for example.)--24.206.111.186 13:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

What if blind caused little pokers to come out of your monitor and poke your eyes? Archangel Avoca 18:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

All RPGs tend to boil down to number crunching, it's what the mechanics of the game are entirely based on. GW is tactical enough as is, and that's what makes the game so enjoyable. All the different build and tactical possibilities and the ways they work and affect the metagame is imo the best thing about it. You could dress it up with as many glitzy effects as you like, it won't amount to better gameplay, and GW PvP is great because of the amount of strategy required to succeed. IMO that's what makes it fun. I also think if people are afraid of killing they ought to go play Harvest Moon or something. But you raise a good point for the more casual players, new and more themed games with less of a competetive edge would probably add a bit of spice and maybe some light relief for the more hardcore players. — Hyperion // talk 22:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Increase Rewards for Fort Aspenwood and Jade Quarry

Andrew here is an idea for you and the team. In order to get people interested in the Factions Competetive missions (CM) why don't you make the rewards the same as AB?

Here is what I propose

10 Balthazar Faction Per Kill. 1500 Luxon/Kurzick Faction Per win.

I truly believe this will get people interested in CM. The reason I do AB instead of CM's is because of the lack of rewards in CM's, and I think many others share my thoughts.

What say you? --58.107.47.95 04:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It's been a while since I did the CM's, but aren't the rounds significantly shorter than AB matches? I could be mistaken, but if that is the case, lower rewards would make sense. --Andrew Patrick 21:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The CM's are the same length as AB matches, sometimes if not longer I have found (It dependes on the situation). I really wish you consider my proposal Andrew or to pass it on. You are the only i can pass my concerns onto (As I don't trust GW Fan sites). Before the increased rewards where introduced to AB hardly anybody did them. When they jacked up the rewards to 10 Faction per kill and 1500Faction (min) per win I noticed a 2 to 3 Fold increase in the amount of people doing AB. I seriously think the same results will occur in CM's.--58.107.47.95 23:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I will pass it on, I was just hypothesizing. :) --Andrew Patrick 23:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

:) Thanks mate. --58.107.47.95 23:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes Fort Aspenwood can win very early (I think 2-3 mins was my best with touchers which snuck through the green gate), but the same is with AB. This is usually only on the Luxons side though, they need to kill something so basic aggressive playing will accomplish this with a few tuned in party members. The Kurzicks need to run amber from the green mine, or even the other two, to win early and I have never seen this happen. Even when there were only 3 or less Luxon players amber running is very unpopular if the gates are down. The average Aspenwood match is pretty close to AB, if the Kurzicks win it is likely longer because you waited for the full timer. Can't comment on Quarry because maybe 6 matches occur each week?:P. I love Aspenwood but if I want serious faction, even if the Luxons are winning in Aspenwood, I will go to AB. Dancing Gnome 16:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

My main point is that people don't really have an incentive to do CM's other than the 'fun factor' of them. If Anet was to put in my proposal and people did 20 matches of Jade Quarry a week (as opposed to 6 in Gnome's example) this proposal would be deemed a success.--58.107.47.95 21:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The most annoying parts of the current rewards are the very low loss reward, implemented to combat inactive players, and the overall nerfed rewards, which occurred at the same time. Now that the report system is back, can we revert the faction gains to pre-update levels? 3 per kill in all CM's and AB, 80 per gate destroyed for Luxons on FA, 4 points per % completed for Kurzicks on FA, 250 extra for victory in FA, don't remember the amount you got for losing/winning in the past in AB's. Haven't played Jade Quarry since literally the previews, so again, no idea.

Losing now is such a waste. I don't even care to play anymore due to how frustrating losses are. At least in the past, I could net a consistent 300~ faction in FA per loss on a bad streak, and eventually get enough to make a deposit or two towards my title. It took months, but I eventually got rank 5. Now my title goes nowhere, and I really don't feel inclined to work on it. Now, we break 4 gates in an intense battle, lose, and 200 is a liberal estimate. This is going all the way to the green gate, failing, and killing 40 people in the process. Less than 200 faction on a loss is far more common.

It's not much to ask for. This isn't a request to raise the rewards to record levels. It's a request to raise the rewards to what they already were before you decided to attempt to penalize players that don't care in a way that hurts everyone else. The report system is here to stay, and it's functional. Let's no longer penalize everybody, please? MA Anathe 23:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I know the low rewards has been brought up before. I think Gaile once said reward for losing isn't something they want to be doing a lot in the game. I think a very important thing to keep in mind is losing makes these places very unrewarding to play, if you are trying to bring people back to the Competitive missions then lowering the faction for losses is working the opposite way. I know a lot of people who won't play there because their losses don't average out like AB. It is usually more rewarding to lose in AB than it is to win in Aspenwood. 58.110.141.210 14:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Andrew any word yet on this proposal? As the above user said it is better to lose in AB than win in Fort Aspenwood.--58.107.47.95 03:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I've gotten a whopping 67 faction for a loss in FA. It's fun to play, and it's great ranger practice (I play Kurzick side), but the rewards are... insubstantial. Armond 22:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It's being over a month since Andrews last post looks like he and Anet don't ever care about this issue. I guess when it comes to service you get what you pay for.--58.107.47.95 09:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Heroes in GvG

Im not going to be the best to explain how this form of team is causing degenerate play, and allowing unskillful play to be rewarded with wins simply because of their build, but I will light the issue here. The problem occurs when you can use multiple necromancers to run the simple bars like healers and hexers/ animaters + tainters. This is a whine, but it has basis behind it, because the teambuild is clearly too strong.--Renegade 16:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The teambuild itself isn't overly powerfull (It's powerfull...not overpowered IMO), its the fact that the Hero's can run it so well because it's just simply reacting to either called targets or the Red bars going down. There are simple ways to beat it yes, but i still think fixing it wouldn't be a terrible idea. Because it allows teams with only 4 or 5 players to Win GvG's. Which they shouldn't be able to IMO. --ChronicinabilitY 16:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I can understand the concern surrounding heroes in GvG. I've seen that build in action (albeit in HA mainly) and the tainted necro especially works very, very efficiently. Not to say a human couldn't do it (that's an experiment I have ran with guildies) it just, well, like you said, makes it a whole lot easier. The designers have told me they are interested in a discussion on this topic, so there is a poll/thread about it here. There have only been 165 votes as of right now, so we would love to get more players feedback. --Andrew Patrick 17:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Its quite a biased poll, because there is no "I like it" option (although these degenerate players would choose such an option), however 60.84% are saying that they think Heroes should be removed, which seems like a great deal. Also what possible benefit is there to allowing this teambuild, when it is clearly winning without the need for skill. If Soul Reaping is going to be left in its current mess, then other methods could make it more balanced: nerfing hexes like Rising Bile, which grow in power the more hexes there are, and making the Ranger/Warriors harder to use, or make them weaker (far too many knockdowns, as well as pet Daze and Deep Wound spam, covered in disease). This is my opinion, but Im pretty sure many would share it.

http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/Game_updates/2007_February#Necromancer shows some updates that really took the game in the wrong direction.--Renegade 20:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

No i don't the necro's are the problem tbh, it's the heros. If necro's were the problem they'd be ran in a lot more places and by human players. You are also linking to a very old update and a lot of those skills have since been changed so it's really not relevant.

If i face that build, ran by 8 human players and lose...then sure i feel bad for being beaten by a gimmick, but i dont feel like they cheated their way to victory the same way as i do when they use heros. The build (Played by humans) does require a small amountof skill (Not a lot! =P) by having the hero's play the skilled positions it removes skill and it is bad for the game. --ChronicinabilitY 22:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

like I said, let two be run. Then it would still allow the option of heroes, while simultaneously ridding heroway. Also, stop dragging this convo everywhere lulz. Readem Warning: Ignore this User if at all possible. 22:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Dragging this convo elsewhere? this is precisely where it is meant to be. And drop hero's to 2...how is that going to change anything? Hero's can still run the 2 Necros (Tainted and Curses) And N/Rt is the easiest bar to heal with so unskilled humans can play that fairly easily. --ChronicinabilitY 22:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It is in at least four different locations, fyi lulz. Who cares if they can run a tainter and a Curse, those builds don't take that much skill to use. Heroway without heroes, can win regardless, as the builds themselves have excellent synergy with one another, and or are over powered (RaO). Nerfing heroes entirely in GvG, is a rash decision, and alternatives should be pursued. Readem Warning: Ignore this User if at all possible. 08:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It's true that that build can be run with all humans--we have run it with both humans and heroes to compare the two. It worked with humans, but only because the person playing the tainted was insane on that build. So, in that case, winning was based on player skill in correlation with a powerful build, where as with a full hero party, to be blunt, at times how well the actual players play can be irrelevant and they essentially ride the coat-tails of their heroes. I think that is the issue with that particular build with heroes...but keep in mind heroway (or oliasway) is not the only issue many have with heroes. Many feel, regardless of heroes effectiveness, that AI controlled NPCs should not be in high-end PvP simply because it is supposed to be pure Player vs Player. In that case, this isn't someone just complaining about a build that keeps beating them, they are complaining that heroes in PvP go against the philosophy of high-end competitive play. Both the over-effectiveness of heroes and the simple question of "do they belong in PvP" should be considered, which is why this is a topic the designers have asked us to discuss, and why I am perfectly happy with it being in 4 different locations.--Andrew Patrick 18:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think removing heroes is fair to the many, many guilds who use heroes here and there to fill in for missing players. Not everyone who uses heroes is abusing the Thumper build - in fact, I've observed very few Top Guild Battles that involved Thumpers one way or the other. I hate Thumpers as much (if not more) than the next person, but honestly...removing heroes because of one build is a weak debate at best. If players don't feel heroes belong in a PvP environment, that's fair enough. But removing heroes because of one build is like removing the Ritualst class entirely to nip Ritspike in the bud. GvG is the heart and soul of GW's PvP, and (IMO) it wasn't meant to be limited to elite players who are only interested in being Top 50. Thousands of guilds play for fun - not hardcore competition. Leave heroes out of Tournaments where the competition is fierce, and let the rest of us have our fun. The Thumper build is a problem, so fix the build - not the players who use heroes that may or may not even be abusing the build. - Aeon Supernova 17:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey Andrew, There's already a lot of discussion about this topic but it's buried about 3 levels deep in Izzy's user space. This seems like a much better place for it since you're the goto guy for pvp issues. What do you think about making a "/Heroes in GvG" subpage (the thread is pretty big already) and moving the discussion from Izzy's talk pages there? That would get everything in once place so that all of the pieces related to this discussion are easy to find. --Tankity Tank 13:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the wiki etiquette for that sort of thing is, but If Izzy prefers that, I would be happy to have it here. I'm also kind of a nub about the whole sub-pages thing, but anyone can feel free to do that here if they think it's appropriate. --Andrew Patrick 17:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to have a "no heroes" userbox, any wikiuser willing to do it? xD Coran Ironclaw 14:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

More Rewards

I'm sure you have seen this subject appearing all over the Wiki and probably many forums, but i thought i would post it here just so there is a direct place for discussion on the subject. A lot of PvPers would very much like something more to spend their Faction/Tourny Token's on after being UAX'd. The amount of tournament tokens needed to enter tournaments is trivial when compared to how many i know a lot of people have stacked up in storage, and there is no use for them. We're not asking for new things to be given or anything like that, simply making things that PvPers need able to be gained like this rather than Gold. The most common suggestion is being able to get Sigils. There have been other suggestions such as being able to buy NPC's for GH's or even RP's but i think Sigil's is the most common, and would be most beneficial. --ChronicinabilitY 17:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I have a big "PvP Wishlist" that I have been holding onto, waiting for the GW:EN dust to settle so I could sit down with some of the designers. PvP rewards and a new use for Balth Faction is definitely on that list. If you have specific suggestions, I would love to hear them. Even Flames of Balthazar would be useful since you could sell them or give them to guildies who need an emergency unlock. I don't know if there are any plans for this sort of thing, but I will certainly look into it. --Andrew Patrick 18:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Could we please see some sort of pvp-armor unluck for tournament rewards? Currently spending reward points is pointless if you re-roll your pvp char oftn --Lou-Saydus 22:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that there are any plans to change rewards to unlocks, but I can look into that for you. --Andrew Patrick 18:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I would LOVE to trade Balth faction for Flames of Balthazar! I'm UAX and have more tournament tokens than I could ever possibly use. My guildies are not yet all UAX and I'd love to be able to transfer my faction to them in some way. Trading for sigils and guild hall NPCs would be nice too, as the OP suggested. It would also be nice to have something to trade in the tokens for, if new rewards were implemented, for those of us who only collected them as to not waste our faction. XD - Aeon Supernova 17:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all, hi Andrew. You can skip the political correctness of PR and when talking to me say openly anything you want, including flame :) Now, let's get to the point. Yes, PvP needs buff in terms of rewards. I've covered that in here: :http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/User_talk:Isaiah_Cartwright/Overpowered_Skills/General#In-detail_the_Cause_of_Heroway_in_GvG_and_its_solution

You can just skip the heroway debate in that post and fast forward to "Rewards". This will give you some insight on why PvP in GW is not nearly as popular as it could have been, especially compared to PvE farming which is utterly boring but popular. The reason isn't that people love mind-numbing farming (some do), as much as that farming rewards them and PvP does not. GW PvP, with all its flaws, is still the best RPG PvP out there. Unfortunately, you guys have been doing nothing since the beginning to encourage *average* players (99,99999999% of GW playersbase) to PvP. After a close look I can safely say that GvG is the best form of PvP for new player as well as experienced. For new player it's because he plays with guildies and allies/friends, and they will not yell at him for nothing. They will help him out, give him builds and advices etc. Winning is also more fun, and the maps are more fun (save to Fort Aspenwood one, which is unbeatable in terms of design). Also, I'm a huge supporter of complete UAX in PvP, and totally against PvP rewards being a hostage of 12yr old PvE players. Mind you, I played PvE too, I have FoW armor, I have green weapons, etc etc but I cannot use those in PvP. I cannot use my PvE Dervish in PvP, it's just not practical in terms of stats and shuffles, I would need to have like 10 sets of FoW armor. Servant of Kali 07:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. :) I have to say, I completely understand where you are coming from. Generally speaking, what gets me to PvE is "needing something." I wanted Primeval armor, so I played through NF with my Warrior. I wanted expensive weapon skins, so I vanquished some areas for money (much more fun than farming IMO.) Now, winning halls has given be sigils and expensive weapons which helps, and of course there are always tournament rewards...but I can definitely agree it would be cool to earning more tangible rewards more frequently in PvP. Now, as in any case, there are likely complications I am not thinking of, but better rewards for PvP is something I mentioned to the designers and will continue to look into. Thanks again for the link --Andrew Patrick 18:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed i think this is very important, let me explain my case: I am leader of a guild which has been doing gvg semi-regularly more than a year from now. We are usually between 300-700 rank (however we are ~1200 now because of vacations and then gwen xD) we did over 600 gvgs from january to june. But still we consider ourselves "casual players" because we dont take it too seriusly because we dont like the things you have to do to become a top guild, we like to give opportunity to new recruits, we rotate people so anyone can play etc. Anyway, I have a LOT of invested hours there, yes they are fun and because of that worthy. But I have been given nothing to prove what we did, or rewarded in any way. Aux is not a reward anymore since anyone can buy aux directly, champion is far from us, and actually we did manage to get reward points at ATS in the beggining when you restricted it to stable guilds (sadly something very scarce), but since you open the ATS to have only 4 guild members, it is now all pug glory and we cant have those rewards anymore. Coran Ironclaw 20:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Excellent post Coren. Even beyond the mid-tier GvG guilds like your own, there should be something in it for the bottom rungs of the ladder as well. Possibilities include spending Balth on consumables (beer, fireworks, etc), buying interesting NPCs to hang around your Hall with Balth, earning GvG victories to purchase new play modes for your Hall. For example: the festival games (dodgeball, etc), a skirmish ruleset that allows PvE skills, a skirmish ruleset that allows up to 12 (or more) players on each side, an FFA skirmish. Basically, fun stuff for the Hall itself.--Drekmonger 19:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

They are more things that are for the PvE/PvP crossover community, and i'm not saying that they are bad ideas, just that we really need more rewards for the higher end PvPers. As it is UAX comes and goes and you are left with stacks and stacks of tokens. Things that are Individual rather than Guild based would be best.--ChronicinabilitY 22:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

high end pvpers? like they dont have enough rewards already? titles are the best rewards in the game, and every form of high end pvp has a good title attached. furthermore gvg and hb now have reward points for skins, HA has always been blessed by high end loot. i think you are completely inconsiderate to the no high end pvpers, i have been playing "guild wars" (<- exactly what the name implies) for two years and i have received nothing at all. so... i will prepare something regarding this. Coran Ironclaw 03:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly! See my point? The general consensus is that people don't PvP as much because they like to PvE more. This is entirely true! But why? Because PvE rewards them, PvP does not. If you had 1 free day to play GW, and have an option between casual PvEing to get PvE armor you want, and playing a bit of PvP to get nothing, which option would you choose? PvE in GW is based on the fact that time invested is rewarded, no matter who you are, or how skilled you are. PvP in GW is based on the premise that people like PvPing so let's give em PvP .. and that's about it. Wrong. People like being rewarded no matter what. If you reserve all PvP rewards for 0,0001% of PvP playerbase, there is absolutely no way to encourage more people to PvP. It's like giving all PvE gold/items only to players who finish Domain of Anguish, and before that you don't get a single coin. If you ask PvErs that, EVERYONE would say it's wrong. PvP and PvE have differences which should be respected; differences in terms of roleplaying vs shuffling, differences in terms of mentality. Like, PvPers dont boast with armor they boast with skill, PvErs boast with armor/looks and other achievements; PvPers use armor for looks (it's important!!) while PvErs for status. Things like these should be taken into account, but the current situation is a disaster. PvE mentality is forced upon PvP, and people who don't even play PvP dictate how PvP should look like. Makes absolutely no sense. If you never meet PvP character not even in the same district, why on earth should it matter what that guy has? A person in South Africa finds a huge diamond in an abandoned mine. Am I going to be depressed over it, here in Europe? ...but back to rewards. I'll say it again, an old poll on GWO showed that a substantial group of PvErs would play PvP (or play more) if there was a point in it. If one promotes PvE endlessly and motivates people to play it, why should there be any suprise if everyone plays PvE and PvP is dead? I mean, seriously, if you guys at ANet had sucky PvP i would not say a word, but making a good PvP and then completely putting it aside and not even giving ingame rewards - now that's sad. It's like tons of effort went for nothing. And mind you, old tournament IRL rewards in cash mean absolutely nothing to casual PvP players. Keep this in mind. When you motivate people and hook them into PvP as well, and make them like PvP as well as PvE, that gives you a huge advantage over games which just offer PvE but their PvP is non-existant or sucky. In other words, it increases sales. I didn't buy GW because of good PvE, I saw it has good PvP and said "cool, it has PvE too, nice advantage". I dont see why opposite would be different, someone could say 'oh this game has slightly better pve, but then again GW has cool PvP as well which I can play when i get bored of pve". Servant of Kali 10:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

To Coran...Sorry i feel you misjudged who i am talking about. I deliberately said 'Higher End' rather than 'High End' Because i understand the rewards are there for the very top, but there are plenty more players who spend life in and around the rank 150-500 guilds and never see these rewards. These players are dedicated to PvP, but because they are either not quite as dedicated, or as lucky to be in a top 100 guild, they don't get Champ Points, so the title you speak of doesn't apply. Reward Points are good but they cannot be earnt at you're own pace. Being in a guild that has very specific slots as to when we can GvG because of the fact our players are spread throughout europe means that we don't have chance to commit to the time needed for AT's. I will reiterate what i said before though. The rewards should most definately be on an individual basis. Guild Rewards will not work. They may work for the average Cross PvE/PvPer, But for the core PvPers they will not. --ChronicinabilitY 11:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Then we are on the same road, but I would remove the "higher" word completely, there should be reward for all levels of pvp (gvg at least), anet already addresed this on arenas with the new proposal of the gladiator title, the intention is to change the title to be "very accessible to lower levels but very difficult to attain high levels". But sure as you get closer to "high end pvp" you should be receiving more rewards. And being honest, I wouldn't like a reward that has to be with faction of balthazar or tokens, i would want an exclusive reward for gvg. but extra fun stuff never hurts for faction of balthazar i would like to be able to trade it for "fun stuff", specially fireworks, but that should be in addition to the previous more important reward system mentioned before. (and i also belieave sigils should be earned playing gvg, not ha, that was nice the first month of release of gw i suppose).Coran Ironclaw 14:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

There should definitely be rewards for ALL players in GvG without exception. You have to build a pyramid. If you rewards only top 0,00001% of GvGers, how will others react? 99,9999% of GvGers not only will never get those rewards but are not even interested because they like casual gaming. And while casual PvEing rewards them, casual PvPing absolutely does not. It is therefore not a surprise that GvG will only be played by handful of people who despite the lack of rewards still feel like doing a bit of PvP in addition to PvE. When you look at how people spend their time, it would appear that boss farming in PvE is greatly superior game feature (when compared to entire PvP), but it really isn't; it's just that there's a reward for boss farming, and that is for *everyone* not just 0,00001% of boss farmers. Servant of Kali 20:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Not really finished but lets see what happens Champion Improvement Draft, that is the main reward in my opinion, still fun stuff in exchange for tokens would be nice. Coran Ironclaw 04:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

No. Champion title means absolutely nothing to me. And I'm mostly a PvPer. You can bet how much it will mean to PvErs. If you want to attract *casual* people to PvP you have to give them something shiny, like 'fun items' or armor/weapon skins for *all* ranks (based on wins alone). I'm rank 5 Gladiator, and the title itself does *not* make me play 4v4 PvP more. In other words, if you want to keep PvPers in PvP, sure, Champion title might make it slightly easier, but if you want to attract casual players to GvG, it's utter failure. Of course, no one will believe me as usual and then everyone will be suprised how PvP is dead and how Heroes are a must in GvG. No, they ain't. It's just that no one wants to solve the problem in a proper way. Servant of Kali 07:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

No sure where we should be discussing this. But since this page is already cluttered with other info, I suggest to discuss any feedback regarding my champion proposal on its own talk page here Champion talk. I already responded to you there. Coran Ironclaw 14:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I support the notion for more PvP Rewards. I rarely use my tokens :/... Readem Hate Mail Goes Here 07:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. No one ever wants to gvg (in our guild) when they could be haing (for title) or pveing (for lootz). We're all UAS, so balth is meaningless. A balth title would be a nice addition, but how about a reward chest at the end of a gvg win with some nice toys? A green Scythe Of Balthazar would be fun, or even just sugar rush muffins or gold or hats or something. 74.184.5.4

I've got to step in here and say, yeah, we need PvP rewards for the casual player. At the very least, I can't imagine it would be difficult to implement a collector who takes tournament tokens (the method of getting these already exists) for booze, rice cakes, lockpicks or flames of balthazar. Flames would go a long way towards helping guildmates get into PvP, even if it was the equivalent of a 5:1 ratio of passing the faction down. Craw 13:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

PvP should give rewards FOR PvP!...Rice cakes, booze etc etc are not for PvP usage (read the description) so giving them to a PvPer for an achievement in PvP to me...seem's useless and only satisfy the PvE'rs even more. --ChronicinabilitY 22:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Trade in for reward points imo. Also want black/white dye for reward points. Readem 23:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

They used to give people money for winning the world championships. Notice how many players left when when it became clear that there would be no NFWC? --TimeToGetIntense 23:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Improving PvP

Saw the thread on Guru about how 'PvP is slowly dieing', and how a lot of people were complaining about stale builds and Elitism. So I had an idea. How viable would it be to introduce a new form of PvP, similar to HA, but with a kind of 'sealed play' format, similar to M:tG and I believe a tournament you ran at one of your expos once, where each team had a list of random skills with which to build their team from. Perhaps after forming a team, players are taken to a holding area where all skills are unlocked for them, but the team only has access to a certain random few of them? Would certainly prevent stale builds! Also this is my first time editing a wiki so I hope I did it right. Bale 13:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

We have a sealed play section on our website that has a lot of information about sealed play that you may find interesting if you hadn't already seen it. I know some independent sites have run sealed-deck tourneys, and of course we host them during some of our live events, but there are not any mechanics currently in the game to do exactly what you are suggesting. When we have sealed deck tourneys at events, we simply check their bar compared to their cards manually, but if someone were to host an event, they could also check them via "skill bar pings." We all love sealed play (we have had internal sealed deck tourneys around the office that were a blast and we love having them at live events) but we don't have any plans to add an automated system for them at this time. --Andrew Patrick 00:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

imo, the closest form of balance exists in a limited format, if u guys over at anet already know this, why not implement it in-game? there we will see who's who for real in pvp.

In game automatic sealed play tournaments would be tricky to program, but not by any means impossible in the GW engine. Anet's just too lazy to do it, just like they're too lazy to fix door bugs in Uncharted Isle or High-Tier HA maps. 72.235.48.41 11:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Polymock PvP

Hey there Andrew, I was just wondering if you could give insight as to if we'll ever see Polymock PvP, and if we are, when? I think it'd be super balanced and awesome. :D Imagine, pure skill, and reward for those who have gathered rare pieces. I've heard Polymock regarded as Pokemon on steroids... I think it'd have been great if my team full of Snorlax could've been able to compete over the web! Just make sure we get Asuran rep for winning, or something interesting. Balthazar, something. And make sure the rewards are on par with the other PvP types. :P Vael Victus 16:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

That yells to a new 'Master Polymock' title. You could add all the pvp prefix, 'Mighty Master Polymock' etc. Coran Ironclaw 18:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Meh. I was thinking that, but I wouldn't really care for it. =/ I mean seriously, no harm intended, but ANet seems to set some pretty impossible goals (10,000 minutes of drunkard... what...) and I'd actually like to max a title for once. xD I would have cartography in tyria, but those stupid arenas I can't even access are holding me back. Regardless, I still don't think a polymock title is needed, unless it gets really popular. So for that end, I suggest an invisible counter in the background for the title, and if it gets popular, release it. Vael Victus 22:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

A real polymock PvP and a title with it would be awesome even though I haven't really played PvP before. (Btw, maxing a title isn't too hard. Try a protector title or the sunspear title for example. Also, 100% Tyria is reachable wihtout the arenas.) -- (gem / talk) 23:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Lol sorry, I've been so tired lately... anyway, what I meant was, like the lightbringer titles and all that. Even finding all those skills for elite track. I personally have one title maxed - tyrian protector. I'd just hate to see Polymock PvP's title have insane reqs. to max it, like 200 hours of polymock or something. Vael Victus 01:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Polymock pvp would be ftw -FireFox File:Firefoxav.png 23:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This is an idea I have seen on the forums, and I have passed it on to the designers to see if it is possible. If it is, I know I would become a polymock addict real quick. :) --Andrew Patrick 17:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to just see a "PvE PvP" With Polymock, with tournaments held in rata sum. The reward for this could just be Asura points. Beating Hoff as it is only gives 50 asura points, and beating him is easy enough that you do not really need to aquire any other pieces. Same goes for norn points and, as I know you hear this a lot, using norn arena for 1v1 combat. Or a new PvP title...Maybe some vanguard PvP and Dwarven Brawling...with hopefully the ability to use PvE Skills in Norn 1v1 PvE...lol...3rd edit...Polymock could allow you to display asura title for PvP...If it is a PvE only PvP and gives asura points...Killer Revan 20:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Automated Tournaments and First Round Byes

I am hearing people say that you still don't get reward points if you get a bye in the first round. This bug has been around for quite some time and I don't ever recall it getting fixed, however, I can't verify for myself that it is still an issue (haven't really gotten a first round bye in quite some time.) If it is still around, this a pretty serious bug, it would be like doing a DoA run and not getting any drops from Mallyx. -Warskull 03:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

If you get a bye, did you earn the tokens? Or do you just think you deserve them? - Drago 03:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Well they may not have needed to fight the battle, but it isn't like it is their fault the other team didn't show up, so I can understand why it's unfair for them not to get the reward points. I will look into this and see what I can find out. --Andrew Patrick 17:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I asked the programmer that is in charge of the ATS, and he is wondering if you can provide an exact date and time so he can check the logs. He will likely also need the name your "registered" with for the ATS. This was a reported issue, and should be fixed, so if it still is not working properly we want to investigate. Thanks! --Andrew Patrick 18:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Anti leecher/leaver mechanics in Fort Aspenwood A/B and Jade Quarry?

Will these mechanics be implemented in the factions pvp arenas? I know leeching and leaving is a big problem, especially in Aspenwood where teams are random and so there is no protection from players abuse of this kind. Would you also be able to elaborate on what these mechanics will be like or when we might see them introduced? Dancing Gnome 01:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It is my understanding that, yes, the mechanics will be in both the Arena's and the Factions PvP maps. We don't have specific information to share at this time as we are still testing and perfecting the system, and it may change before going live. --Andrew Patrick 18:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow! I get completely frustrated trying to play a good round of Snowball fighting when some punk drops. I really appreciate the addition of the /report feature but a 3 on 4 game is horrible. I don't play much PvP except for these special occasions events such as Wintersday. Could there be something implemented to stop this from happening? I see a trend; one guy gets frustrated so he load up the immediately drops, leaving a team of 3 to fend for themselves. One or two of those three left decide it's not worth their time to play a 3 on 4 so they drop too. I think if we could (somehow) stop the madness i could gain gamer points per hour much faster. And heck, a lot more fun too.

GWEN skins for tourney reward points

yes/no, anytime soon? --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Misfate .

They are already in the "PvP works in progress" list. Please be patient.Coran Ironclaw 18:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Any new information about this?

Other options to Ladder clean-up rather than resets

I am very happy to see the entry "Ladder resets?" in the "Hot Topics/suggestions" list (at least there). The current situation is really bad, I suggested to the Guild Wars Latino fansite to improve their ladder to show inactive guilds, and because they are also worried about this they did take the time to do it, here is the result: Guild Wars Latino Ladder under the column A you can see a green dot on active guilds and a grey dot on inactive guilds (15 days or more). Conting over the 100-top guilds 36 are inactive (6/oct/07). Other people counted all 1000 guilds and their number were more or less 430 guilds are active (5/oct/07), meaning that 57% of the guilds in the ladder are inactive. Sorry to say that is pretty pretty sad and make a complete enviroment of a dead gvg and they are taking away slots that could be used by real-active guilds. That becomes worse if we add the pugs and smurf guilds but this time I won't talk about that. Considering that, A ladder clean-up is urgue and extremely important and therefore I start a formal proposal about it.

Not everything is simple. Reseting the ladder is not good in all terms. The instability of a reseted ladder takes more than a month to vanish (in my opinion). Between that time, Elo rating based pairings are very inefficient (yes, a lot more), and that will not just happen once, that will happens everytime the ladder is reset and the question will arise again, how much time between resets? Rather than finding the time between resets I do really prefer to suggest options to clean the ladder without having to reset it:

Option 1: Removal of inactive guilds

If a guild arrives to N days without playing GvG, then its rating is reset to 1000 and is taken out of the ladder.
N could be 15 days, or 21 days.
Benefit: Removes phantoms guilds that just occupies ladder ranks.
Possible Disadvantage: Too strict, legitime guilds can be reseted if they take some vacations.

Option 2: Sustracting points of inactive guilds

If a guild arrives to M days without playing GvG, then for that day on, the guild loses K points each day until the guild plays gvg again or the guild arrives to 1000 points in that moment is taken out of the ladder.
M could be 7 or 10.
K could be 10.
Benefit: Removes phantoms guilds that just occupies ladder ranks, without being too strict.
Option 2 could be combined with option 1 with a large N (maybe 30 or 40) to remove low rated (<1000) guilds.
Possible Disadvantage: Some legitime guilds can see their rating reduced if they take vacations.

Option 3: Preventing the max rating to skyrock

Any guild with rating over L rating will lose points according to J% of the rating points over 1600.
L could be 1600.
J could be 5%.
Example: The guild [gww] has 1680 rating points. Then they have 80 "over points" then they lose 5% of that points = 4 points that day.
Benefit: With the implamentation of this option, long termed guilds do not "sit on the throne" over the not-so long termed guilds.

Option 4: Suspended Guilds, no rating loses

If a guild arrives to P days without playing GvG, then it is removed from the ladder assigning a Rank: N/A, but its rating remains untouched. When the guild plays GvG again it is reintroduced in the ladder.
P could be 7 or 10.
Benefit: Removes phantoms guilds from the ladder without penalizing guilds that takes "vacations".
Possible Disadvantage: Rated Unranked Inactive guilds can be accumulated, and used whenever the leader fits better to occupy ladder positions.

All options are independent.
Please also consider my Champion title improvement proposal.
Coran Ironclaw 21:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

No one really cares about ladder rank tbh. It is all about ATS. Readem Hate Mail Goes Here 21:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Your argument is wrong. At least, I do care. Coran Ironclaw 21:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Dead guilds on the ladder is a huge issue right now. There are tons of inactive guilds sitting around on the ladder. This impacts observer mode and many other factors. A quick solution would be to simply only display a guild on the ladder if it has won a match in the past 7 days. Thus an inactive guild doesn't appear on the ladder, yet retains its rating. -Warskull 08:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a good solution. I don't like solution that loses the rating of these guilds. Every guild goes through inactive spells due to a variety of reasons, they shouldn't be punished for this by losing rating. So when they do become active again they can pick up where they left off.--ChronicinabilitY 10:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Seems like i didn't consider that option that sounds viable too. I am adding it. I am also adding a "possible disadvantage" line for the options. Coran Ironclaw 16:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Option #4 sounds the most reasonable. This kind of ladder cleaning system is also used on other programs to denote inactivity effect. It should be progressed: 30 days with no match would retain the rating, but remove guild from the ladder. When guild plays again, ladder mechanic considers it unranked for matchmaking purposes. After a short trial period the guild would pick up where it left. If guild has been inactive for longer time, say 6 months, it would lose both ladder position and become unranked guild with 1,000 rating. --Toge 00:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Then you are suggesting the implementation of both: option 1 and 4, but in 1 a very large time. The only thing that worries me a little about option 4 is the idea of a "black-ladder" of inactive guilds capable of entering the ladder again with just a single battle. Maybe like you say instead of only a single battle to renew the activity it is requested a whole "trial period" but how difficult will be that to implement? what could be the requirements on this trial period? isn't that too complicated?

Now I have numbers about the inactive guilds on the ladder, please reread the first pharagraph of this topic. Coran Ironclaw 01:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you post inactivity statistics for HB Ladder? Exciter 16:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but, Guild Wars Latino didn't implement the activity feature to the HB ladder, and I don't care of HB enough to go and look one by one on the official guild wars ladder.Coran Ironclaw 17:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Any chance they could do a Green for active, Yellow for 15 days, and red for 30 days?...I think 15 may be a little strict. Would be interesting to see the numbers on 30days. --ChronicinabilitY 17:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

That has been requested and they replied that is not easy to do, not sure if they are going to implement it. Coran Ironclaw 17:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

This has been something that has been discussed, and will continue to be discussed, but at this time we have no official plans for the ladder. I will certainly let the powers that be know it is still a hot topic. --Andrew Patrick 17:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Anti-griefing and Gladiator Changes

You can see information and an explanation of the Anti-griefing mechanics and Gladiator changes here Please feel free to discuss these changes here. --Andrew Patrick 19:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• makes a note* never let frosty upload changes again. >;) --Lemming 19:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Will the move from ra to ta at 10 streaks stay or will be removed? Coran Ironclaw 20:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, it remains unchanged. -Andrew Patrick 20:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

So theres no automatic detection for afk players, it can only be done by players manually reporting other players? Not sure thats too wise, such a feature will most likely be abused. --Just One More Thing 21:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Was thinking the same. Now if the group doesn't feel comfortable with someone they could threat him with quitting or being /report'ed. or some could do it just because they don't like mute players, or wammos, or because the next round they want to try getting a specific profession. At least the penalty is not excesive (as long as there is no further action taken, as in "account mark"). 200.72.230.135 22:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm feeling the same way. If i want to play a wammo with healer's boon in Aspenwood i should be able to do it, but other players would for sure report me for nothing. Giving the power to players is a BAD BAD BAD idea guys, there will be problems soon. Not counting i can just unplug my net instead of ragequitting and avoid dishonor (or are you planning to harass bad connection even more?). --YukoIshii 22:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, will time limits/VOD be introduced for RA/TA? With leaving penalties in place, if stalemate takes place and teams cant kill each other that will cause problems. (Things like high defence/running/griefing builds). --Just One More Thing 22:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Scratch that concern. I see the update notes are more extensive and mention time limits. --Just One More Thing 23:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree with the fact that /report will probably be abused. If someone wants to run frenzy healsig in RA they should be able to do so, RA is for messing around with weird builds in the first place. Antiarchangel 00:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

We are aware that there could be a potential for abuse with /report and we will be carefully monitoring the system. If any changes are necessary, we will make them. Keep in mind, you need more than one person to report a player, otherwise the reporter will be given dishonor points for a false report. The chances of multiple party members maliciously reporting someone isn't high, but as I said, if it is an issue we will tweak it. --Andrew Patrick 00:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

That's good too hear. As long as your trying to fix problems, I'm good. Antiarchangel 00:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid this system hasn't changed much in Aspenwood. I just finished 2 battles, and both had leechers on both sides. On the first match, playing Luxon, the leecher was an auto-follow bot, which picked a team member and just followed them the whole round. The kurzicks had a plain ol' auto-join bot. The second round, 2 auto-join bots, which just stand at the starting point and do nothing, were on the luxon side, and at least one auto-follow bot was on the kurzick side. It just followed one of their teammates, which was really funny when someone crippled them.

I reported the Luxon side individuals, but as far as I can tell, nobody else did. It didn't seem like everyone knew about the reporting system, and for the auto-follow bots, it's really hard to tell they're not playing unless you stand there and watch them for a second. Unfortunately, the only time you can tell that is by the time your team has split into smaller groups in the portals, and because of that, few people seem to notice them.

Basically, as far as I can tell, the only thing that's happened in Aspenwood is that more people are using bots that both join and follow people around, rather than just joining and standing there, making leeching less obvious, rather than less present.

I suggest making the reporting easier, with a button next to player names or something, and a pop-up tooltip hint when going into unorganized pvp mentioning the new reporting system, as well as considering a separate dishonor debuff for the competitive missions for inactivity that is automatically applied every few minutes if an individual does not use a skill or attack, and ends immediately when they do. Few builds, even a bonder, uses absolutely no skills for periods of say, 3-5 minutes. Since it ends on a skill use or attack, if people have to get up for a mini emergency, the moment they get back, they can resume receiving rewards. Though most amber runners either attack to kill the Luxon Rangers, or use run buffs, the act of picking up amber could stave off the debuff as well. It's something to consider, at least? MA Anathe 16:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you tell your team mates that they were leechers and that they should use the /report function? Being as it has only been online for a day, you are probably right in that they didn't know about the system, or at least didn't know how to use it. I imagine over time as more people become aware of the system it will be used more often, but if we find that it is not working to it's potential, we will take a look at it. --Andrew Patrick 17:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

"If at least half your team reports the same player for leeching" - How does that work? Do the other players automatically get promted to vote that the reported player is leeching? Or do they have to each individually report. If im going to get dishonor points for being the only person reporing a leeching teammate, how do i know others have voted? If theres more leechers than players, then what? --Just One More Thing 18:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh wait, I just looked at the clock and I think the /report thing isn't even going to be on for another hour. It's being turned on for the weekend event later today, and will be monitored over the weekend. --Andrew Patrick 18:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, that might explain a bit... XD Based on the updated notes, I assumed it to be already enabled. Thank you for the info.MA Anathe 19:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey Andrew! Guess what today is?! Today is the Right to Know day! And congratulations, you have just earned the right to know that you have completely fucked up! And I won't go into details because I'm not going to waste my life typing up the hundred or so reasons why this update was completely illogical. Sincerely, someone who will probably never play RA again and will let his Glad title fall into healing-breeze-wammo shame. 65.93.144.25 19:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

GWW:NPA? Coran Ironclaw 21:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I gave some feedback here: Talk:Game_updates/20070927#Feedback - sorry, for crossposting, it's always hard to tell where's the right section for feedback in wikis (or is it just me?). - TeleTeddy 08:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Go into RA with a Mo/W using a sword just like a newbie would. See how many dishonor points you rack up, then tell me this system won't get abused. -Warskull 16:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I just realized; The drops in rewards for Competitive Missions and Alliance battles, with a decline in faction gained per kill, breaking gates, and such, were to combat the leeching menace; With the reporting system, even needing the tweaking it does, will we see a return to the old system of faction? Aspenwood gains are pathetic at 1 per kill, a max of 250 for breaking all the gates on a loss, as opposed to the former 3 per kill, 450 for breaking all the gates on the luxon side, and I doubt the kurzicks are enjoying losing any more. Part of the leaving issue is because the losses are so unrewarding, people don't see the point of sticking around if there's no chance they'll get anything worthwhile. MA Anathe 18:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, the reason people left ABs/CMs is because the rewards for losing were non-existent. If you have bad players on your team you may as well leave. Now just just may as well not play AB anymore. All AB really needed was to return the rewards back to a reasonable amount for losing and throw a bonus at players for active play. They just keep trying to kill ABs/CM as a format with this series of changes. -Warskull 20:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Well in efforts to improve and revive PVP Anet has killed it for so many gamers like me. If the report command is added in its current form then I for one will NEVER pvp again in GW, will most likely not buy GW2 and probably stop playing. Why? Simply because I have played many many MMO's over the year's and griefing is always a problem, but when the company adds a way for players to intentionally grief and possibly have actions taken against thier account, then they went the wrong way about the fix. Nearly all Dial-up and many slow DSL users are the most adversely affected, but also those with slower computers, the fact that it has become near ucstom after less then 48 hrs to report SLOW loaders as leechers is wrong and stupid, some times when you have reached 100% all us know that you can sit there for awhile, mean while your avatar shows up and players end up reporting you as a leech for no reason, and if enough do it you get "dishonored." Now that in my opinion IS greifing, as defined by another player negitively impacting the play of other players. So as much as I love to AB (14mil faction BEFORE the double xfer update) I will not be getting the faction bonus this weekend, nor will I be pvping if they add this system to the game for good.

Please ANet reconsider this griefing measure, as in my opinion this is a violation of your own TOS/EULA due to the fact that you will be allowing others to "grief" legitly and have them "dishonored." 24.73.34.174 02:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you already been dishonored, or are you just making predictions? You could also warn your team ahead of time. ~ | Pae - Talk | 07:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Solution? Revert the edits. It is just not going to work. You went about it the wrong way, seriously. 65.93.214.52 13:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Dishonor from resigning

With the actual changes, In AB (I don't know if also in other places) if your team resign you accumulate dishonor points. I think this shouldn't be, because resigning is a tool given by the game. So I see 3 options to fix this, I put them in order of what should be done in my opinion:

• Remove Dishonor points obtained by resigning. If your team resigned is for a reason, so there is no need to accumulate dishonor points.
• Make resign to need all 12 players not just the 4 on your team. If you really don't want a team to be able to go out leaving behind the other 2 in battle then fix the resign tool to need all the 12 players. It won't be easy to use it but at least you can try to convince the others to resign.
• Remove resign tool completelly. If you don't really want to implement any of the two previous options, then remove resign from AB, it shouldn't be there if you are going to punish players from using it.

Coran Ironclaw 16:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for posting your feedback everyone. The /report function was being tested this weekend, and will be removed and the designers will go over your feedback next week. As for the dishonor system, it seems like you could just not leave a match early to avoid that. I agree there is room for abuse with the /report system, but honestly, I can't see the issue with the dishonor system. Random Arenas is not supposed to be "hit enter and quit over and over until you get the team you want." Alliance Battles is not supposed to be "enter the match and sit there while your team does the work." The system deals with those issues, and while I understand some players don't want to be adversely effected by the system, others don't want to deal with leavers and leechers every time they enter a random-team match. We will be looking at both systems to see if there are any issues, so please feel free to continue to post your feedback. --Andrew Patrick 18:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Let me just say, THANKYOU, thankyou for implementing this change, i love that now i can join in ra and actually have a 4v4 fight, yeah i know that sometimes its harder, but man is it more fun. Personally i cant see what people are complaining about, the only reason i can come up with is that it is new and people havent gotten used to it yet, just dont do the things it says not to do and you are fine. Anyways just wanted to pop and say Good Work, i like the change 58.168.10.40 01:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Forfeits in AT

The current AT system makes several groups of 32 teams and then checks if the teams are ready in their guild halls or not. Considering many guilds are just signing in while waiting to see if their guildmates connect, this ends up with 2 or 3 groups with about 50% of the teams forfeiting from their 1st match. This problem is really annoying for all the guilds really participating: they skip the 1st match because of those forfeits, have to wait 30mn for the 2nd round, and it also prevents a better competition against guilds that could have been in their group. Please do the teams check before making the groups: 1st countdown end->check the teams->kick the inactive teams->make the 32 teams group(s). Should have been like that since the beginning honnestly or there is something I miss there. Ichiko 13:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

...ok or perhaps stop using ATs this way if there isn't enough players to fuel them. Let's go back to the old ladder rating with a 2 months reset, there will be more people playing all the time and that's what count after all. Transform the AT system: this Tolkano NPC could be used to enter a prophecies only skills gvg matchup system as many players seem to ask for that, sealed deck tournaments, and also for entering the monthly playoffs accessible to the top50 teams on the ladder.Ichiko 20:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, at least costume battles are something new and fun, would be nice to keep them accessible from an npc after the Halloween event. There is a lot that could be done in this sealed deck style of gameplay. Ichiko 05:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm bored, make GW open source please. Ichiko 07:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

At this time, it is an extremely frustrating process to move up the ladder. Playing on the ladder means that you are getting +2s and +3s which means that to actually reach a point which is somewhat representative of your skill level takes forever. Of course ATs are the way to really gain rating points quickly. The problem with that is that the only teams playing (by which I mean not dropping after round 1)are generally teams at the very top of the ladder. This means that if you want to actually play, you're going to get -5s or so for losing to Df, dR, Rawr etc. Its great to play these matches but you generally aren't ladder wise going get anywhere since all the other teams simply forfit giving you no rating back. There has to be a way to encourage more teams to use the system or punish them with rating loss for forfits, or simply revert to the old ladder system of gains so that the rating gain there reflects the rating gain possible in the ATS. Basically I feel like the system simply leaves a vast number of guilds out in the cold. This is an issue that was talked about a long time ago on guru but I haven't seen much movement on it, or any options or responses being talked about. Is there any progress being made on this front?--Mandos 17:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Too time consuming to enter PvP

Hello thar :P

Just wanted to give a quick comment regarding PvP. The skill acquisition methods are immensely time consuming, and while it sounds like GW2 is going to fix this up quite nicely.. what is going to be done with GW1?

I know so many people that I could easily get to at least buy GW to give it a try, but even I have a hard time convincing them to do so because the time investment to get enough skills to start having fun is just huge. Yeah, you get a few free skills to start up with, but not even a full build. Not to mention, the funnest part of GW is coming up with a new (or at least new for you :P) build to try out.

While I don't have much of a suggestion outside of perhaps a UAX mode within GW1 similar to GW2's, I did want to bring it to the attention of the devs that they're losing out on a huge percentage of profits due to the time investment to get into what I think is the most awesome part of the game. I know unlocking skills isn't that difficult in any way, but it is a time consuming process that really wards off new players.

Simple answer...PvP packs...they're already there! --ChronicinabilitY 14:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Well it seems GW devs now agree on UAX from the start for GW2 but GW1 still doesn't show this. Pvp packs are not close to that: you have to pay for UAX and you don't have access to the whole pve content. Really, would you pay an amount of money close to the price of each chapter at its release date for a game going on its third year old, and still getting only a part of its content? Nothing different from a full chapters content pack with UAX at a price reflecting the age of the game would be able to drag people in, and you still have to communicate about that. Ichiko 15:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The pricing may be wrong but the solution is there. They cant change GW1 to start with UAX because for all of us who have spent the time to UAX our accounts then we'd be losing out on a huge amount. --ChronicinabilitY 15:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

What would we lose? Having a game trying to be competitive again, more people in pvp, tournaments that would mean something again? I don't mind giving people what I had liked to find in this game from the start. Ichiko 15:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

They should release an GW PvP edition which includes all skills of all 4 GW releases, no PvE content 6-8 character slots for a descent price. Let's say 80 euro. --Jurrit 14:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

We should have some news about this issue in the next couple days. Hold tight. :) --Andrew Patrick 21:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

No one respects a pre-order UAX. It is something you must earn for yourself, because you are truly interested in PvP. Readem 21:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It'd be nice if those of us with UAX could trade excess balthazar faction for flames of balth. Even if it was a 10:1 ratio, it would make setting up for GvG so much easier. Craw 21:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Umm its called marketing, u can BUY a skill pack. 24.141.45.72 00:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

What can ArenaNet do to revive PvP?...Overall Pvp title and other suggestions.

Fact 1: People are NOT looking for fame in HA. They are looking for a glowing emote that is unachievable otherwise.

Fact 2: There are very limited competitive PvP opportunities for a player who started late in the game. However, opposite is true for PvE folks.

Fact 3: The game evolved with new campaigns over time and the title that held true and probably meaningful in early 2005 now, lost its meaning completely. I am referring to Hero title track.

Fact 4: The various ranks of a title track is simply to distinguish between hardcore and causal players within the same title track.

Based on these facts here is my suggestion:

1. Create a title track that is an over-arcing title track to prove a players devotion to PvP aspect of the game. This will be comparable to "Adventurer of North" title track. The progression of the track will be achieved via several means and participation in various PvP arenas such as HA, RA, TA, GvG, Alliance Battles, Hero Battles etc. with different weights to limit/prevent abuse. In essence, to make PvP more new-comer friendly, we need to lessen the degree of distinction between hardcore and casual players from general arena perspective. Let the hardcores be in the hardcore crowd and enjoy there; hardcores don't PuG and they live in a closed community. Don't make the whole domain hardcore friendly.

For example (point values h win

• • Gain bonus points (maybe +.25) for lossless streak in GvG
• Gain .1 Point per HA Map wins
  • Gain bonus points (maybe +.1) for consecutive wins
• Gain 1 Point per HoH win
  • Gain bonus points (maybe +.2) for winning with handicap [meaning lower ranked teams beating higher ranked ones]
• Gain .2 Point per AB win
• Gain .1 Point for every hero battle win
  • Gain bonus points (maybe +.2) for lossless streak in Hero battles

• Level 1 -- 100 Points
• Level 2 -- 200 Points
• Level 3 -- 400 Points
• ...
• ...
• ...

2. Associate glowing emotes to this arched title-track. To prevent a shitstorm arising from the hint of current R9s losing their tigers and R12s losing their Phoenixes, let them keep their emotes and to distinguish the both, either create a new set of glowing emotes or just add different tint to the current ones. My suggestion, however, will be to have the point distribution done in such a way that R9/R12 folks can maintain their emotes without creating a new set. You have done this with gladiator title track and I am sure this is achievable in this proposition as well.

The goal of my suggestions is to create a PuG friendly environment in PvP arenas. The entry barrier in HA (ONLY where you get a chance to gain a glowing emote) created iWay, Spiritway and various other Scrubways. And these in effect forced skill balances that threw the overall PvP off-balance. To remove the barrier and to provide a level ground for every one we need some changes in PvP. Let's first level all the arenas from the perspective of "showing-off" and then add value to each arena and buffs/de-buffs to maintain a decent player populace in every arena at all time. Hence, I suggest,

• Future Skill Balances focussing more on getting new players and underused classes in competitive PvP.
• Better Map rotations in HA (too many relic runs already.) and map randomization of HoH (Had 9 or 10 consec relic run maps one night last month).
• Have HA matches be rank matched. Provide handicap & bonuses like bowling leagues in HA for lower ranked teams when facing a higher ranked one (PuG or Guild) based on the players' average composite "hero" rank. I think you did pretty good in balancing ABs. looking to see some similar improvisations in HA as well.
• Bring back 5 teams HoH. Let us be fighters again instead of Forrest Gumps (Enough relic running already to reach HoH).
• Lower/Modify the tourney rewards requirements so more and more people can access them.
• Provide random goodies to people for attaining ranks in new title track I am proposing. I suggest minipets.
• To prevent people from utilizing one arena to gain more and more fame towards rank/emotes, add point boosts for people playing in all arenas. It is pretty easy as every arena has its own title track. You just have to make a weighted factor.

Vel Vel

I see here a proposal to implement an overall pvp title. Sounds very interesting to me, but I wouldn't do it that way.

• The title should be based on other titles only and not with separated wins or extra bonuses. For example, From the arenas, it is ok the way you putted it based on the gladiator points, but there shouln't be any bonus points, if you think the title does a bad job representing the time and the skill of a player invested on that gamestyle then propose a change to the title not another title trying to fix that. (As an example you can see my Champion Improvement Proposal)
• There shouldn't be fractions points like "Gain .1 Point", instead you can multiply everthing for 10.

Now my suggestions for each title:

• Gladiator: Gain 7 points per glad point.
• Champion: Using the current title, gain 30 points per champion point. Using my suggested proposal (look here xD), gain 1 point per champion point.
• Hero: Gain 12 points per hero point.
• Commander: Gain 6 points per commander point.

The points table would be then something like this:
Pvp Master Title

Tier	Title	Victories
1	Pvp Master	2500
2	Fierce Pvp Master	5000
3	Mighty Pvp Master	10000
4	Deadly Pvp Master	16,800
5	Terrifying Pvp Master	28,000
6	Conquering Pvp Master	46,600
7	Subjugating Pvp Master	so on...

Regarding the emotes and all that... well i better don't comment about it =p. Coran Ironclaw 21:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Another useless title we can not wear? O joy! Readem 02:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

My proposal is NOT just about adding another overall title. My suggestion is about a hollistic approach to change the way PvP is perceived in GW. Just adding a title track for PvP as PvP Master will do absolutely no good to GW PvP. If you want to revamp something that is old, you need to change the core; You first need to challenge the existing system, shift focus and then improvise.

I am not worried about point distribution at this stage. I am thinking about the con-ops (concept of operations). My approach focusses on making PvP popular instead of keeping it "1337 only" aspect of the game. I am hoping to achieve playstyle changes, arena popularity balance and overall shift in player mentality utilizing my suggestions. The bonuses are there to add boosters to change in the overall mentality. If you cater to the hardcore with this title track you will miss the mark by a mile. It is NOT aimed at hard-core populace. To give you an example, I was a competitive contract bridge player in college. We had fun playing in college tourneys. But, none of us ever went and fooled around with people who did not match up with us or hustle anyone for that matter. We enjoyed the competition more than the rewards. The same apply to GW hardcore crowd. The hardcore will look at innovativeness of an arena, play mode etc. They are looking for adrenaline rush; they are NOT looking for fancy emotes and such. Let's cater to them in a different fashion outside the scope of my suggestions. Let's give them new challenging content rather than same old same old. Let's take the proven content and spread them to the masses for now. Then rinse and repeat the process with new proven hardcore content.

When the game was introduced Hero title came with it. Good or Bad, I won't comment but, it was achieved battling in HA with a reward of a glowing emote which became very very popular among everyone. The legacy of Hero title carried on and new titles, gameplays etc. were introduced with different arenas like Hero battles, Alliance battles etc. People who got rank in HA dissed out other people who played a lot of other arenas and did variety of things. The new player populace shrank day by day in HA to the point where you get series of "No opposing Parties" at 9 PM EST in HA for an underworld match. GvGs are not for everyone. Getting 8 people to log on at one time and play is not easy for every guild with real-life demands. I will not comment about the possibility of guild dramas in guilds pursuing GvG sub-domain of PvP. However, doing some ABs, hero battles, HA, RA or TA is not that hard if you keep these arenas PuG friendly. Its the mass that makes the difference. Players who are hardcore and very competitive will always remain within their in-crowd and they should. As long as you market and plan the system targeting average Janes and Joes, the game will be popular. To cater to the hardcore, you can always have private tourneys, matches, sealed play etc.

The game is OLD now. To revive the valor of GW PvP, the emote that signified a player's inclination/prowess towards PvP once needs to be moved out of 1 track and needs to be put on an overall mastery track that represents a player devotion to PvP. Playing only in HA does not really signify/prove that. So, I will reiterate, if you just another title track, you will just waste your time as it will absolutely add no benefit or bonus for people trying to get into PvP scene with access to HA. Vel 10:48 PM EST, Oct 1st 2007

You talk about changing almost everything in pvp, but then at last you only speak about the need to move the emote. In my opinion an emote is almost the same as a title, just a aesthetic representation of you dedication, but if your opinion is that emote is the key is respectable. ...i said i was not going to talk about emotes. Coran Ironclaw 06:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I've heard a lot of suggestions about an over-all PvP title. Some based on Balth Faction, others based on other things. I personally think its a really cool idea that would likely encourage players to try out multiple kinds of PvP. I haven't heard of any plans to add new titles, but I will continue to mention the value of an over-all PvP title whenever the topic comes up. --Andrew Patrick 17:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion would just be adding a quest. This quest requires you to take part or win in each type of PVP. Imho the main problem is people not knowing what PvP is about. They just need some motivation to try out things. Der moon 19:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't you think some players that know what PvP is, but choose not to play it may be upset that, in order to complete a quest, they have to PvP? It's an interesting suggestion, I just don't know if "forcing" people to try PvP is the best option. Not to mention, it would be hard for a player to find a group and win in both HA and GvG just for a quest.-Andrew Patrick 20:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean something like a forced pvp arena battle that is part of the pve main line ? seems to me that was done since the very beggining of the game. And i think that was not popular, specially when the survivor title came out. Coran Ironclaw 05:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it could just be a secondary quest, so everyone is free to do it or do it not. Finding a group could be a problem in HA or in GvG, but why not make the quest a series of single quests - like the asura polymock-quests are - f.i. RA -> HB -> AB -> TA -> HA -> GvG. You could get some exp as reward, perhaps some bathasar faction also, as it is very very difficult for newer players to unlock all the skills they need. I remember my first experiences in PvP with just my normal monk-spells unlocked and we decided to play a nec-spike. It took me ages to get the bath. faction... Wins in RA, HB, AB, TA are no real problem. In HA, it should be sufficient to win at least one round. Winning one GvG is not so problematic, as you typically have some luck after a few tries. Finding a team for GvG would then also be no problem, because if you are slightly interessted in GvG, you probably already have a guild... Especially with TA or HA you have to have some contact to other players. Perhaps add "Try out the observer mode" to the GvG quest or something like that. If someone knows PvP and chooses not to PvP, then he just don't have to do the quest. It's no harm done to him having a NPC with this quest. Der moon 15:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I think your view of the difficulty in playing the various arenas is biased. The casual players for whom these quests are orientated are going to experience a lot of difficulty and frustration in attempting to complete them, for two reasons:

1. Casual players are rarely found in PvP-orientated guilds and don't necessarily associate with PvP players. HA and GvG will therefore become virtually impossible to achieve. It's no good to say "[they'll] probably already have a guild" because "being in a guild" is only part of the requirements for GvG -- you need more than a handful of members, and you need to be ranked. People aren't going to want to leave their unranked, PvE-orientated guilds just to complete a quest, even if they do want to complete that quest.

2. Regular PvPers are just so hostile towards newbies. I myself didn't venture into PvP again for over a year after my first attempt, because I was yelled at and called a noob by my teammates. Furthermore, playing PvP for the sake of achieving something is in itself much more frustrating than playing PvP for the sake of playing PvP, especially when you're diving in without learning how to play first (as a PvEer trying to finish a quest might). In the end, the questers are going to be actively driven away from PvP, rather than inspired to play it more.

In my opinion, the problem is not about people not being aware of PvP -- it's about PvP being too overwhelming to contemplate. --Mme. Donelle 06:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Er, hmm. Sorry, I got my facts wrong. GvG doesn't necessarily require a ranked guild. What I meant was, your guild mates need to be willing to GvG with you, which, given that your average casual PvEer is a member of a casual PvE guild, is unlikely. --Mme. Donelle 06:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, although it sucks, the only way would be to find another guild >.> or for you to get them into GvG. ANet can't brainwash them for you :P ~ | Pae - Talk | 01:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Great ideas, but I think the biggest single thing Anet can do to fix pvp is to balance the skills properly. ie. hire someone who has a functional brain. 72.235.48.41 11:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I feel that it would be a good idea to have a title that reflected your overall skill in PvP, however the fact is that all the title track will ever been is a record of how Experienced a player is. As such that title track would need to take into account the Balthazar faction gained on the account and all the PvP title tracks as well. Gladiator, Hero, Commander and Champion title tracks (but not Kurzick or Luxon because they can be farmed in PvE. but AB does give a lot of balthazar at the moment to compensate) Just score each title roughly in accordance of how hard it is to get. For each rank on a PvP title track points are awarded to the pvp version of the Kind of a Big deal title. Balthazar would also be broken up into 100K brackets. I also don't believe current 'wins' are recorded so a title based title along the lines of Kind Of a Big Deal makes more sense. The value of each title is as follows and are awarded for each rank in that title, not the individual fame/glad points themselves.

Hero 10 Points, Commander 15 Points, Gladiator 15 Points, Champion 30 Points.

100K Balthazar 3 points.

The title Tiers could be along the lines of: Kind Of Well Known

Tier	Title	Points
1	Kind Of Well Known	50
2	People Worship Me	110
3	I'm All Powerful	180
4	I Have Many Devoted Fans	260
5	My Temple is Full of Unearthly Riches	350
6	God Walking Over Mere Mortals	450

Under this system my own account would have 268 Points, bringing it to Rank 4. And a top level GvG Player that recently tried to sell his account (and therefore posted his Stats) has 404 Points, bringing it to rank 5. The point requirement is quite high to reach the last tiers of the title. Just doing HA, or Just doing GvG is not enough. You must have a few different pvp titles to get a high rank in the pvp title track. The best way to achieve this would be to just get the lower tiers of each title. For example Rank 1 Champion, rank 6 hero, rank 4 commander and rank 4 gladiator with 3 Million balthazar faction would give a total of 300 points to the title (rank 4) But to get higher you have to actually not only play different formats of pvp - you need to be Good at it (with impressive titles)

The highest tire (God Walking Over Mere Mortals) could be achieve with this example: Rank 5 Glad, Rank 5 Commander, Rank 12 Hero, Rank 2 Champion 4 Million Balth. Give emotes for each rank? Or at least every second one. (Generic 10:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC))

new use for balth faction

Could you please read my comment on http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Talk:Zaishen_Chest#remove_the_consumables Thx -Jon --83.26.12.141 18:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)