User talk:Isaiah Cartwright/Izzy Talk Archive 4

VoD Feedback

I started another page here /VoD feedback to talk about VoD.

Movies

• Transformers: Just went and saw this a few hours ago, I really enjoyed it I'll probably end up watching it again this week! ~Izzy @-'----

Saw it last night despite my reservations. Never like to mess up my nostalgia with what I used to love as a kid, but my friends said I'd love it and they were right. Now I'd like to see *cough* G.I. Joe *cough* as a movie. — Gares 17:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

G.I. Joe is being made, currently an expected release sometime in 09 and they are currently in talks with Mark Wahlberg to do Duke. From http://www.insomniacmania.com/news_default.php?id=3743 -- The movie is set to begin development straight after the release of "Transformers", and di Bonaventura is desperate for Mark Whalberg to play lead hero Duke. Whalberg has confirmed that he is also interested in the project. The movie will be set before the rise of the COBRA organization, showing how the man the world will one day call Cobra Commander created his terrorist organization and honed it into a worldwide threat. Other COBRA characters, such as Destro and Stormshadow, are being planned to be included in the film. As for who is on the JOE team, look for appearances by the team's main players, such as Duke, Hawk and Snake Eyes.Dargon 20:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Noooooooo!!! i hate that retarded American propaganda spreading wannabe soldier ~ Kurd 22:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

All these movies scare me, I feel like my childhood could be crushed if they suck, *See Teenage mutant ninja turtles for example* ~Izzy @-'----

I wasn't allowed to watch TV before school and that's when all those shows were on so I'm lucky in that my childhood dreams won't be crushed, but unlucky at the same time because I missed out on so many TV shows. :( I thought Transformers was really exciting though. - BeX 04:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Should I be watching Transformers or The Simpsons?--Yanman.be 07:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Being a officer of The Decepticons guild liking Transformers would be high treason =D Biz 10:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I would watch Transformers first then The Simpsons :P...hmmm need to go to get 300 on dvd :D--Bane of Worlds 16:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Guild Lord

Hey, remember when you said you were going to update the Guild Lord and NPCs to meet each chapters theme. That never happened with nightfall. Just reminding you that it fell through. My Guild Lord never got an afro or eye patch. -Warskull 15:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah we never really did any art for them. ~Izzy @-'---- 07:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Would be a cool thing to bring back if the opportunity ever arises. Things have been stuck in cantha mode forever. -Warskull 00:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Well the Guild Halls are supplied by Cantha ;) Dargon 17:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

How about something more neutral. Something unique for guild halls and guild halls alone. Counciler 04:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

What if the NPC was unique to each GH? ie: isle of the dead has undead NPC's (or npc's that look undead, but follow normal fleshy creature rules), and isle of jade has luxon npc's. I am sure that the skins that would be used for most of them would be out there already. I dont know about this, and this is going out on a limb a bit here, but npcs in the same map have same skills, so as the map is not uneven, but npc's on different maps have different skills,similar to the pve skills. ie:luxon mele in isle of the jade would use same skills as luxon mele in fort aspenwood...otherwise, just changing skins to match hall would be a cool idea.Killer Revan 03:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I was actually thinking something very similar just the other day. NPC's that use existing skins, but skins that fit with the hall, such as dwarves in Frozen Isle Dargon 01:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

One of my old guild-mates talked about an idea like that before. His idea was to allow you to pay for different sets of NPCs by talking to your guild lord. You already have the skins for the archers and footmen, too. Just have options like Ascalon, Kryta, Kournan, Istani, Canthan, Luxon, and Kurzick NPCs. The Guild Lords for each are the only ones that might require some new skins. Maybe make it something that costs a certain amount of gold or faction to unlock them too. Pluto 23:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Not really, Guild Lords can use large sized existing skins. For example, the Wizard's Isle skin could be Warmaster Grast scaled up. Hunter's Isle could be Firstwatch Sergio scaled up. There are plenty of 'Leader NPC' skins out there. Just scale them up. -- Counciler 06:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It would be really cool, but wouldn't different races add advantages against disease spreading?--BahamutKaiser 19:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It's PvP, everything's human. - HeWhoIsPale 19:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Observe: My Guild's Battles

I think it's an awesome feature that you can observe your last match for 24 hours, the problem: Only if your guild is out of the top 100 ladder and AT matches are available there. This issue exists since ages and takes away the chance from top teams to analyze their matches by watching them repeatedly. Would it be possible to fix that? --Void 11:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually this is also occasionally annoying if you're a lower ranked guild, because then you lose your most impressive victories or best learning experiences from obs too. Errr 11:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Izzy League

Ok I had this idea today and so I wrote up some rules and made a little page check it out. /Izzy League ~Izzy @-'---- 04:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds really awesome. Shame there is zero chance of me leaving my guild : / --Deathwing 04:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to, if your guild wants to participate they can join the alliance. -Auron 04:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

My guild won't want to :) And we are leader of an alliance, so yeah. Anyway, sounds like a lot of fun. Hope everyone involved has fun. --Deathwing 04:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Design-A-Skill weekend!

I think this would be great! People design a single skill, email it in. Then the devs pick out a selection of 5-10 skills they like, tweak them a little. Then post em up and let the community vote on which skill they would like. And then the winner gets the skill unlocked on their gw account(locked on everyone elses) and a pin w/ the skill on it. Im sure this is waaaay too far fetched to ever happen xD but I thought it would be something fun and intersting to look at :P --Lou-Saydus 18:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Giving a player his own skill for a contest would be unfair balance wise. Now i'd prefer something along the lines of 1 skill added per profession (or 1 norm 1 elite), and for the winners to get skill pins of the chosen skills and a signed copy of GW:EN (or a chapter of choice), or a new rare skinned weapon for the profession they chose, or even GW2 Alpha (or early closed beta) access. This way it wouldnt be unfair to others who could still unlock the skill, but it would also be a great reward for the winners. Izz has said not much more would be added, but i would hope they still planned on supporting (and adding small things here and there) to GW1 (like they said they would when they announced GW2)--Midnight08 23:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

"And then the winner gets the skill unlocked on their gw account(locked on everyone elses) and a pin w/ the skill on it." meaning they can unlock it at a priest. --Lou-Saydus 01:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

That's interesting for something to do later down the road just for fun. I'm just waiting for the Felix the Char skill though. :O --Redfeather 04:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Only a half million entries, all of them with the stats of one skill build, even if something will be implemented it would be so far off the suggested that it wouldn't even be fun. Biz 07:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The design team would be pulling their hair out if they had to choose from millions of user submitted skills, a majority of which would read something like this

"Superuberleetsauce 5e,0c,1337r, Protection Prayers: This deals (285487...3548562) damage to your target. If your target lives through this, they die anyway. This skill can be used from other maps. If this skill is interrupted, Leeloof loses his virginity. If you use this skill on a full moon, you capture Hall of Heroes."

Imagine reading around 100,000 skills that dumb. It would be good for a laugh, but it would be a waste of time. Shard 10:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

For the last few days I have been thinking of a contest that a-net could set-up to do with adding some new skill's into the game. More specifically I was thinking maybe 6 months after gw:eotn or 6 months after the bonus pack they should introduce 5 new skill's into the game for each profession, all of them being user idea's. On every guild forum I have ever been a part of we have always had a section for our own skill idea's, be they silly or serious. The benefit of this for A-net would be it would be extra content for everyone which we love and they might like as players themselves, but also this would possibly allow some new mechanic idea's to be brought up, like maybe someone might say for a

protection prayers spell, cost 15 energy all dmg up to 100-400 [just numbers] is negated for allies/party members in the nearby distance.

This is a completely new kind of spell as far as a monk would go, ok this might be over powered or people might echo/chain it, still a unique strategy [yeah i just realised it's kind of like a ward but i was basing it more of the kurzicks urn of saint viktor. And as a reward maybe the people who's skill's are chosen will have all these skill's unlocked or even maybe an extra character slot or other little prizes that probably wouldn't cost anything to a-net [like producing pin's and shipping them out]. The last kicker to finish of my idea for this would also maybe make these skills [when listed by campaign] go under there own category of "special" any campaign user can obtain them from priest of balthazar or a skill trainer put into the great temple of balthazar [who might also provide core skills] or guild hall trainer [maybe] so that people wont complain about not being able to get it and so that people who have purchased pvp packs wont expect to just have it unlocked for them, let them need to buy/unlock them.--Fusional 13:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Why can't heroes use PvE only skills?

Was just wondering why heroes can't use the PvE only skills? Its not as if its going to unbalance hero battles or anything. Sadie2k 02:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing two reasons: 1) To encourage playing with other people. 2) Most PvE skills are title-linked, and heroes don't have titles. - HeWhoIsPale 12:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I hope number 1 is wrong. Anet should leave social networking to myspace, I'm just here to kill things :D. For number 2, they have already given heroes the lightbringer bonuses inherited from the player, they could do the same for the other titles ranks. Sadie2k 16:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I however like to meet people too. I like the social aspect of GW, if you just want to kill things by yourself, don't go play an online game. You can still brag to others about your skill on myspace. Nicky Silverstar 07:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Admit it, GW on pve is just a single player game you play in multiplayer coop, not like its a bad thing but some things you just cant bother to do with other people and giving heroes LB bonuses of master was a huge help, for once taking 3 Wars to beat Court full of margonites for masters in half the time using high damage attack spam and lb8 actuality was a good idea. But really things like farming items/greens/titles, capping skills are done alone, higher brain functions like exploring new ways of using skills/new odd builds and completing "hard" missions are for the teamplay. Biz 07:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I just don't understand why heroes need to be penalised in their skill selection. After all, isn't the whole "players are smarter than AI" difference supposed to be enough to encourage social play? If you need a monk, and have got a guildie that likes playing monk that is available when we want to do a mission, etc. fine. But if not, thats what heroes/henches are for. One of the things I like about GW is that we can have smaller guilds, where not everybody has to play in a team all the time, but henches/heroes have to fill the team gaps. Sadie2k 02:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree but Anet already made it clear that they think heroes are the cause for the lack of pugs (stating it was the main reason they're only letting us use 3 heroes instead of 7), so disabling these skills is probably meant to further discourage the use of heroes. As you can see from one of the above responses some people share the same opinion as Anet on this matter. Whenever people can't find a pug they're quick to blame heroes/henches for that, but when you actually do invite them in your team they're often the same people that refuse to show their build, refuse to change their build and/or they're the ones constantly typing "gogogogo". Heroes aren't to blame for destroying the social aspect of the game, the players are.

"if you just want to kill things by yourself, don't go play an online game."

One of the main selling points of GW is the fact that you can play the game alone so your statement is already wrong to begin with. Nobody is stopping you from playing with other people, so why should you be concerned about heroes having access to PvE only skills if you don't use them anyway? --Draikin 11:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a sad fact of my PvE play at the moment that I find my heroes and henchmen much better than PUGs, by virtue of using builds I know work, sensible armour and equipment, having a good support/attack/defense balance and not doing stupid things like rushing, or at least, I have learnt how and when the AI rushes and does bad pulls. The only thing I dislike about the Hench/Hero setups is the fact that you can't order them into a general "wide" or "tight" formation, which would help immensely against certain enemies. --Ckal Ktak 12:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Something like making the hero use certain skills on himself only or on others would be nice too to add ----InfestedHydralisk 13:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Mainly we wanted there to be a reason to have real players vs Heroes sometimes, and these are rewards for title progression, it seems a bit overboard when you can get 4 copies of a skill for 1 title. ~Izzy @-'---- 18:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

If players don't want to adventure with other humans, they'll grab 4 henchies and go. No 3-hero limit or lack of PvE-only skills will change that :/ --Santax (talk · contribs) 15:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

So what about the statement of "Give players the freedom to do what they want." that has been said in several different interviews? People who want to play with other people will play with other people and people who want to play by themself or just a friend will continue to do so. Why should they be punished for not preferring to play with others or for doing quests others aren't wanting to do or for not having the time to do those when others are? Where is the freedom to play how they want? As for the comment "it seems a bit overboard when you can get 4 copies of a skill" then what about when 4 or more real players bring that skill? It's the same thing but they aren't limited in their play preferrences. So why punish people with something so asinine? ~ Sabastian

What about only letting heroes take one PvE skill each? Players would still have the advantage of being able to take up to 3 PvE skills. -- Gordon Ecker 05:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

That would be a good starting point for several reasons. 1) It would help show ArenaNet that it won't hurt the game but it will help those players who can't/won't play with others for all their reasons, especially in Hard Mode. 2) As the game dies down, especially the older chapters, players will be able to still enjoy them with a lot less hassle. It'd also mean the the creatures in those areas won't have to be nerfed constantly, like Thunderhead Keep was, so if someone wants to truely challenge themself they can take Henchmen and no PvE only skills. Besides, limiting for the sake of limiting is never good, and currently thats all they are doing in this case. ~ Sabastian 05:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

"The fact that he is playing in a large communal environment is not a predictor of how he wants to play. We should be striving to make games that let you play how you want to play right now, and offer you the flexibility to progress with any combination of players you like. Don't underestimate the importance of solo play! Sometimes your friends aren't online, sometimes you want to kill 30 minutes while everyone groups together, and sometimes you just don't want to go to committee on every damn decision. The quality of the solo play experience is just as important to the success of an MMO as the quality of the multiplayer experience." That quote by Jeff Strain goes against how ArenaNet is penalizing players for playing with heros so which is it going to be: Try to force players to play with others or let them enjoy the game playing how they want? ~ Sabastian 06:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Limiting these skills is a great call. Imagin not having eye of the north, in a hero battle, and someone comes at you with 4 brutal mallings......no opposing party would survive. You earn those PVE skills for your character, heros having them would make everything insanley easy. Med Luvin 14:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Wait, Brutal Mauling is only on bear pets and does no extra damage and lowers the bear's DPS. Also, it's not a PvE only skill unless you count that it is a monser skill and players can't control it anyway. Also, you can't use PvE only skills in Hero's Battles. Furthermore, other real players can use PvE only skills so by the same reasoning then only one person on the team should be able to bring a PvE only skill to keep it from being "insanely easy." Now then, as the old saying says, "Whats good for the goose is good for the gander." ~ Sabastian 06:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I would rather be able to use 7 heros so I can make a fully synergized team than having some more powerful Title skills available on my heros. I can understand the added value of having a player in your party, knowing that they will have some title skills to outmatch a hero, but I would like to have a clockwork 7 hero solo option so I can truely accel on my own without other players if I want, and not rely on 4 moderatly good henchmen.--BahamutKaiser 20:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Good Try

← moved to User_talk:Isaiah_Cartwright/Update20070816

Obs Bot

Is there a way to get this 24/7 observer bot you've got? I just picked up a free laptop after filling out 50 rebates (not kidding, fifty) and nothing to put on it. Thanks in advance for the reply. —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ〚₮/ḉ〛 18:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually all the functionality is now in GW I used to run a macro to do it, but now if you just set a guy up in Great Temple, open up observer mode and check the pick my game for me. Then set what type of games you want to watch by expanding and shrinking the tabs. Then let go it will pick games for you and try not to pick games you've already watched. ~Izzy @-'---- 19:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I was not aware of that! Thank you! —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ〚₮/ḉ〛 19:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there a way to filter it to only GvG? Would it be possible to add that in? —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ〚₮/ḉ〛 19:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Minimizing all the tabs apart from GvG Tournaments and GvG Ladder matches should work. Also, hai2grinch. Tab 13:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah this is what I do I switch between GvG, HvH, and HA depending on what I want watch. ~Izzy @-'---- 22:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Feedback

Someone linked me to this thread it's a bit old, but I figured id clear up a few things on it so here goes:

• 1.) I don't really visit GWP anymore, the feedback I get from there hasn't been to worthwhile in a long time.
• 2.) In the end James and I make the final call on what gets changed, while we do use feedback from MSN conversations, in game conversations, Wiki, Obs mode, and Playing the game, it's up to us to make that decision.
• 3.) Devs don't post on boards beacuse it is the structure of our company that we focus our comments through Gaile who is the liaison between the Devs and the community. There are Pro's and Con's to this system, but it is the system we have in place.
• 4.) If you want Dialog with me you can post here, or message me in game, I don't exactly hide. : )

and waylaa. ~Izzy @-'---- 22:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The idea of having an admin just to gather feedback from the players (Gaile Gray) is a great idea, but there's so much feedback, as long as there's just one admin doing that, most of the feedback goes unheard. Everyone that has ever been in the same district as Gaile Gray knows that within a few minutes, chat starts flying by so fast it becomes unreadable. I think we need more admins like her, especially some that are more PvP-based. 69.137.78.47 04:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

There's also Andrew Patrick and Emily Diehl. Alex Weekes was also involved in gathering feedback when he worked at ANet. -- Gordon Ecker 05:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Plus Gaile has constantly stated that she constantly sees other dev team members surfing the forums and what not. I think Gaile is doing a great job now especially since she has been saying she has added this thread or this comment to the weekly report. However, actually getting a "1 on 1" with a dev here is fantastic. --70.245.252.221 14:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Rodgort's Invocation

Thank you for buffing this, it's awesome with dual attunes now :D Corpselooter 07:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Cleaning Izzy's section

Any chance Izzy can get some moderator that will clean all the trolling, spamming and clueless posts which only take everyones time to browse through? Yes, that means someone who would check Underpowered/Overpowered skill section in particular and move thrash to Archive. As such, it would need to be someone who has a clue about PvP, the knowledge to remove obviously obsolete stuff (for instance, the current discussion on Axe Mastery, Ressurection signet etc). Servant of Kali 10:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

But your bad, why would you complain. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:70.183.62.141 .

I don't like the idea of some moderator archiving anything in the overpowered or underpowered pages which they personally disagree with, but I am in favour of archiving anything in one of the overpowered or underpowered pages for which there is a concensus to the contrary, such as Axe Mastery or Resurrection Signet. As a last resort, the overpowered and underpowered pages could be semi-protected to prevent anonymous editing, but I don't think it's necessary at the moment. -- Gordon Ecker 22:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You move it to the Archive you don't delete it. I don't think anyone would move stuff he/she disagrees with. I mean, the very nature of skill discussions is disagreement, if everyone agreed there wouldn't be any discussion :) So in short, if people disagree with something that's the reason for topic to stay. I'm merely talking about redundant stuff, obvious trolling or just obvious misconceptions (like, if someone puts a skill in underpowered section and then dozen of experienced people tell him the skill is fine and used etc). Servant of Kali 23:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I know that, but I don't like the idea of someone unilaterally closing a discussion, and I really don't like the possibility of archiving without concensus leading to an edit war on a talk page. What's wrong with waiting a few days for concensus before archiving? -- Gordon Ecker 06:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I should note here that moving a discussion to archive doesn't force the discussion to end - conversations can be brought back from archive by any user and discussion continued, if there is interest in continuing it. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 06:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with archiving, I have a problem with having a designated moderator with extra authority. I guess it would be okay as long as the moderator doesn't re-archive anything without concensus or an update to the skill in question. Anyway, if a monitor does get designated, it will be Izzy's decision (unless Izzy decides to move skill page out of his user namespace and convert it into a project, in which case the issue of moderation would be resolved by concensus on the project talk page). -- Gordon Ecker 07:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

1 Vs 1

im not realy sure where to put this but i was just wondering they have 1 vs 1 tournements but they arent actuallly 1 vs 1 (basicly just hero battles) so any chance of real 1 vs 1 tournements at all? something like a small arena (like in random arenas) and two people just fight to the death. or at least an arena for 1 vs 1 adding people to my gh as guests starts to get expensive after a while. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:82.39.38.76 .

Dude, you realize that 1v1 is just not practical in Guild Wars at all right? Guild Wars is a team based game and its one of the main reason Hero Battles was implemented. 1v1 similar to what people do in their own guild hall takes no skill,but only the luck of having the right skills to kill the opponent. Either way, this may be something to look at for GW 2, but not right now. On the other hand allowing players to fight in the KilRoy Punchout Tournament together would be a good substitute for a 1v1 arena. EdgeBomber 18:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

i couldn't disagree more 1 vs 1 does take some luck but having the skills to win doesnt make you lucky i fail to see why i should be forced to join a team to do pvp i understand if it cant be done but personaly hero battles bore me to no end every match ive seen so far is both teams flag heroes while they run around capping srhines theres is minimal fighting in there maybe if there was none of the shrine crap and it was just fighting i would do it but i just don't enjoy them. now luck is random arenas you can get in a awesome team or you can get a full team of leavers if ra is based on luck this much then why cant a 1 vs 1 verson of ra be made seeing as how it would be exactly the same only less people?. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:82.39.38.76 .

It appears that someone is in need of an e-peen boost by pooning people in 1v1s. I'll tell ya what, you bring a warrior, and I will bring a curse necro, lets see how it is based on "skill". It is not based on "skill" it is based on build. Certain builds are totally ineffective against other builds, but that means nothing. A BHA ranger vs a W/R. The only thing a 1v1 proves is that one build has a weakness for another build. You are better off playing /rock /paper /scissors. --Deathwing 00:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

ok im on gw atm whats ur char name we can fight --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:82.39.38.76 .

The biggest problem with a 1v1 is that it's so easy to stalemate if both builds are highly defensive and can't crack the other's tank. To make it more feasible, you would have to add something to reduce healing and the duration of stances, enchantments, signets, etc. and buff damage and hexes over time. Although I could see how the meta would eventually evolve into just a few successful builds, as there is less room for variation compared to even hero battles. A Kilroy punchout tournament might be fun as a 1v1. --Thervold 00:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

or just a 1 minute time limit and make it a "tie" if it doesnt end by then both people get i dunno 20 balth faction for a tie. its not like people would use this for balth farming zashen challenge is better for that. and besides you'd get like what 50 faction every win. last thing so what if its a tie u not seen the constant runners in ra? nothing to stop them. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:82.39.38.76 .

IIRC one of the major reasons for adding Hero Battles was to create a balanced form of 1v1. Since the Guild Wars 2 professions are apparently being balanced to be viable for both solo and team play, it's possible that balanced true 1v1 may be more feasible in Guild Wars 2. -- Gordon Ecker 01:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

hero battles is balanced although i don't like it many people do thats fine but im tierd of always getting 3 sin spiker's in my team with no healng and dying in seconds in random arenas finding a team in team arenas is nearly impossible because every1 is always wanting some kind of spiker interupter or monk and heroes accent is hopeless because evrey1 always wants high fame or being in a guild i have a empty guild (meaning theres 2 ppl that actually play and one is me) but i don't wanna leave it so im stuck with shiverpeak arena making new characters all the time or adding random people from lions arch into my gh for matchs which useually involve me getting them down to 40% hp then them running into there base to get me killed. i would just like a simple alternative i don't understand how the game works at all tbh but as far as i can tell it would be easy to add basicly random arenas (in every way) except only 1 person per team and thats it. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:82.39.38.76 .

Another idea is to add a scrimmage hall to certain areas. where players can set up casual 1v1 2v2 3v3 and 4v4 setups. Make choices of random or chosen. This way players get the fun on scrim, but it wont really impact the normal play and wouldnt need to be balanced at all... Set a 5 min time limit for 1v1 and 2v2 and 10 for 3v3 and 4v4.--Midnight08 02:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I've never understood the impractical/useless argument. 1v1's and 2v2's happen all the time in GvGs and it would be nice to have a place to practice. My suggestion would be to have a flagstand and you win by holding it. At the start you have to hold it for 1 minute to win and that length of time would slowly decrease as the match went on. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Cloud .

I'll explain the uselessness to you then. Certain builds totally dominate other builds. No "practice" can change this, it is just how the game was made. It doesn't show that someone has a better build than someone else. It doesn't show that someone is more skilled than the other person. So...what exactly is the point?

A Melee-shutdown necro will own a warrior.

A caster-shutdown mesmer will own the melee-shutdown necro.

The warrior will own the caster-shutdown mesmer.

Why bother? Just play /rock /paper /scissors. --Deathwing 06:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

yeh your right melee shutdown owns warrior when they play like retarded monkeys and attack with ss ip and empathy on them o the can just hold out until the necro loses nrg then pwn them. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:82.39.38.76 .

... and you think a Curse Necro will run out of energy because by casting SS on you every 20 seconds? Look, it's true that random 1v1 arena where you fight other people IS pretty meaningless in GW. The game isn't DESIGNED for it. If you want 1v1 for PvP, look for another game really unless you think HB are fun. GH allows you to scrim now, which is enough to practice the scrims that could matter and test build vs build (for example see if build X can fight a BA Ranger head on if you plan to use it to gank/counter gank). It WOULD be nice to have a small arena for it so that you don't have the 2-3 minutes of waiting for game to start and running to the other guy, but i can't say i think it's absolutely necessary. If anything, they should just make a very small arena, maybe with some rocks or walls in the middle that can help for LoS, where you have like 10 seconds before game start in the beginning only and you can just go fight quickly. But it's more of a luxury thing than anything the game really needs Patccmoi 14:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

u say ss i say skull crack if you dont like the idea then fine gezz it was a suggestion i like doing 1 vs 1 hero battles involve little to no actual fighting. it might not be practical i dont know i thought it wouldnt be hard it is just random arenas with less people but like i said i dont know realy --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:82.39.38.76 .

Really bad idea, games balanced around team play, not solo.--Atlas Oranos 20:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

how would it be unbalanced? its not like it would have different rules. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:82.39.38.76 .

Because it would strongly favor some professions such as Warriors, Rangers, Monks and Assassins over other professions such as Paragons. -- Gordon Ecker 20:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll say this again, because it seems to have been ignored. 1v1's happen ALL THE TIME in GvGs and it would be nice to have a place to practice. To teach you what kinds of builds you have to run away from if nothing else. Obviously it would need some kind of progressive VoD and that's why I suggested the flagging format, especially since its a 1v1 style that's useful in other formats (i.e. GvG). If you wouldn't want to play, think it would dilute the player base, have another format you'd prefer to have added, etc fine. But to say its useless or pointless? Tell it to your flag runner. Cloud 01:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

There already IS a place for practice. It's called Guild Scrimmage and Fort Aspenwood. Both are good for that practice. FA if you want to test randomness and Scrimmage if you want to test under controlled conditions. Servant of Kali 08:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

One thing that might work is some kind of "freeform PvP" outpost where you form a party of any size from 1 to 12 players and get matched up against another team of the same size, with a great big warning stating that freeform PvP is just for fun, and is not and never will be balanced. -- Gordon Ecker 01:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

As long as no rewards are given for such battles, I'm game for freeform PvP. Counciler 03:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The only way to have a reasonable 1vs1 is if the builds are chosen for you, with abilities that allow you to win or lose based on control. It is very easy to completely shutdown a melee and kill him without even being in range to be hit, and without their action. It is also very easy to shutdown a caster with no opportunity for them to cast a spell, and no means of escape. When you have a free build 1vs1, it really isn't a test of skill, it is a guessing game as to what build will most likely dominate the other. Worst off, there are a few builds which are nearly impenetrable and can sustain themselves almost indefinetly against most foes, though they cannot deal effective damage, and people would excersise them in a match of persistance. In a strategy game you can't have a legitimate 1vs1. Now if it was an action game with several shared options and action controls as a means to out control your opponent reguardless of build, it would be viable, but as long as it is a basic strategy with mostly build based advantages, a natural 1vs1 just woln't offer a fair challenge, and if it isn't fair nothing can be awarded for it.--BahamutKaiser 21:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Polymock PvP = best 1 vs 1! Coran Ironclaw 21:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)